BERKeilY 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

CALIFORNIA 


university  or  caliiorhia 

,*FARTMENT  OF  CIVIL  ENGINEER^ 
BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

OEPARTMCNT  OF  CIVIL  ENGINEERING 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


SPECIAL    REPORT 


MASSACHUSETTS    BOARD    OF 


RAILROAD    COMMISSIONERS 

ito  iht  ScjisJaturi; 


IN   RELATION   TO   THE 


DISASTER  ON  MONDAY,  MAECH  14,  1887, 


DEDHAAI  BKAXCII   OF  TIIE   BOSTOX   &   PROVEDEXCE 
RAIEllOAD, 

AT  THE  BRIDGE  COaIMONLY  KNOWN  AS  THE  BUSSEY  BRIDGE,  OVER 

SOUTH  STREET,  BETWEEN  THE   ROSLINDALE  AND   FOREST 

HILLS  STATIONS,  IN  THAT  PART  OF  BOSTON 

CALLED  WEST  ROXBURY. 


BOSTON : 

WRIGHT   &   POTTER  PRINTING  CO.,  STATE   PRINTERS, 

18  Post  Office  Square. 

1887. 


Commoncoealth  of  ittassacljusctts. 


Skkate,  April  13,  1867. 

Ordered,  That  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  be 
authorized  to  report  in  print,  for  the  use  of  the  Legislature, 
the  results  of  their  investigation  of  the  recent  accident  on 
the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad,  at  Bussey  Bridge,  with 
such  diagrams  and  illustrations  as  may  be  necessary  for  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  text. 

Sent  down  for  concurrence. 

(Signed)  E.  HERBERT   CLAPP, 

Clerk. 


House  of  Representatives,  April  14,  1887. 
Concurred. 

(Signed;         EDWARD   A.  McLAUGHLIN, 

Clerk. 


A  true  copy. 

Attest : 

E.  HERBERT   CLAPP, 

Clerk  of  the  Senate. 


ENGIN. 

IBRAR> 


Commonfoealtjj  of  Massachusetts. 


To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  in  General 
Court  assembled. 

The  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  respectfully  sub- 
mit the  following  special  report :  — 

On  the  morning  of  the  fourteenth  day  of  March  last 
past,  an  appalling  disaster  happened  to  the  seven  o'clock 
train  from  Dedham  on  the  Dedham  branch  of  the  Boston 
&  Providence  Railroad  at  the  bridge  commonly  known  as 
the  Bussey  Bridge  over  South  Street,  between  the  Roslin- 
dale  and  Forest  Hills  stations,  in  that  part  of  Boston 
called  West  Roxbury. 

Within  a  few  hours  after  the  catastrophe,  two  members 
of  the  Board  visited  the  scene,  carefully  examined  the 
wreck,  and  in  accordance  with  their  request,  Mr.  A.  A. 
Folsom,  the  superintendent  of  the  road,  undertook  to 
have  preserved  all  portions  of  the  wreck  which  would  be 
likely  to  throw  light  on  the  cause  of  the  accident,  and 
especially  two  broken  hangers  to  which  his  attention  was 
(jailed.  On  the  same  afternoon  the  Board  employed  Mr. 
Thomas  Doane,  civil  engineer,  as  an  expert  in  its  behalf, 
to  make  a  careful  examination  of  the  details  of  the 
wreck,  and  to  see  that  all  important  portions  of  it  were 
preserved  in  accordance  with  the  agreement  of  the  super- 
intendent. The  railroad  company  also  employed  Mr. 
Edward  S.  Philbrick  to  act  in  a  similar  capacity  in  its 
behalf. 


369 


4  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

TnE  Hearings. 

The  first  public  bearing  was  given  on  Tuesday,  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  March,  being  the  day  after  the  accident,  and 
thirteen  sessions  in  all  were  held,  the  last  being  on  Mon- 
day, the  4th  of  April. 

The  Board  felt  that  greater  confidence  would  be  placed 
in  the  testimony  of  the  employees  of  the  train  if  they  were 
examined  without  delay,  and  accordingly  proceeded  at  once 
with  their  examination.  Next  they  examined  the  officials 
of  the  road  who  were  responsible  for  the  road-bed,  for  the 
bridge  and  for  the  rolling-stock  ;  then  those  people  who 
were  represented  to  have  discovered  defects  in  the  bridge 
in  the  past ;  then  two  eye-witnesses  of  the  disaster  and 
several  passengers  on  the  train,  and  finally  the  experts. 
This  order  of  the  investigation  gave  the  experts  the  bene- 
fit of  all  the  evidence  which  was  before  the  Commission, 
so  that  they  could  express  their  opinion  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  the  details  of  the  disaster. 

The  employees  of  the  train  who  were  examined  were 
conductor  William  H.  Alden,  engineer  "Walter  E.  White, 
fireman  Alfred  E.  Billings,  and  brakemen  John  Tripp  and 
Elisha  Annis.  There  were  two  other  conductors,  one  of 
whom,  Myron  Tilden,  was  killed,  probably  at  the  rear 
platform  of  the  third  car,  as  his  body  was  found  on  the 
embankment  on  the  Boston  side  of  the  bridge  behind  the 
car ;  and  the  other,  Webster  N.  Drake,  was  so  badly 
injured  as  to  be  unable  to  attend.  There  was  a  third  brake- 
man,  Winfield  W.  Smith,  who  also  suffered  severe  injuries. 

This  is  a  complete  list  of  the  employees  in  charge  of  the 
train. 

The  Board  also  examined  the  president  of  the  company, 
Mr.  Henry  A.  Whitney,  and  two  of  the  directors,  Messrs. 
Balch  and  Robeson  ;  the  superintendent  of  the  road,  Mr. 
A.  A.  Folsom ;  the  master  mechanic,  Mr.  George  Rich- 
ards;  the  superintendent  of  construction,  Mr.  George  F. 
Folsom   (not  a  relation  of  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom,  the  super- 


SPECIAL  REPORT. 

intendent  of  the  road)  ;  the  chief  car  inspector,  Mr. 
Edward  Lang;  the  foreman  of  carpenters;,  Mr.  James  A. 
Folsom,  a  brother  of  Mr.  George  F.  Folsom  ;  the  clerk 
in  the  superintendent's  office,  Mr.  George  A.  Davis  ;  and 
the  builder  of  the  bridge,  Mr.  Edmund  H.  Hewins. 

Messrs.  Harlan  W.  Brock,  Henry  C.  Allen,  Theodoiv 

B.  Moses  and  Israel  G.  Whitney  were  examined  in  relation 
to  reported  defects  in  the  bridge  ;  Thomas  P.  Lally  of  the 
Boston  Fire  Department,  as  to  fires  ;  and  Martin  Lynch 
and  Joseph  McDonald,  as  eye-witnesses  of  the  accident. 

The  following  passengers  also  testified  :  — 
Messrs.  W.  K.  Dennett,  Frank  Davidson  and  Arthur 
W.  Crosby,  who  were  in  the  first  car ;  Messrs.  Joseph 
K.  P.  Reed,  Rudolph  Weimar,  Julius  Meyer  and  Wright 
W.  Williams,  who  were  in  the  second  car  ;  Messrs.  Charles 
T.  Bowthorp,  Charles  E.  Farrington  and  Winslow  J. 
Spaulding,  who  were  in  the  third  car;  Messrs.    Charles 

C.  Darling,  Jr.,  and  Frank  Cutter,  who  were  in  the 
fourth  car;  Messrs.  Cyrus  W.  Hayes,  Francis  W.  Gib- 
bons and  George  F.  Waldron,  who  were  in  the  fifth  car ; 
Mr.  Edward  V.  Cormerais,  Miss  Alice  L.  Page  and  Miss 
Mary  A.  Page,  who  were  in  the  sixth  car;  and  Mr.  Louis 
Arnold,  who  was  in  the  eighth  car. 

Among  the  experts  who  were  examined  were  Henry 
Manley,  Assistant  Engineer  of  the  city  of  Boston  ;  Prof. 
George  F.  Swain,  of  the  Institute  of  Technology;  Prof. 
George  L.  Vose,  and  Messrs.  Edward  S.  Philbrick  and 
Thomas  Doane,  civil  engineers. 

The  Make-up  of  the  Train  and  the  Number  of 
Passengers. 

It  appeared  that  the  train  left  Dedham  at  seven  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  drawn  by  the  engine  "  Torrey,"  built 
in  1880  at  the  Rhode  Island  Locomotive  "Works,  and 
weighing  32^  gross  tons.  There  were  nine  cars  on  the 
train,  arranged  in  the  following  order:  passenger  cars 
Nos.  52,  18,  28,  87,  54,  80,  81  and  82,  and  at  the  rear 


6  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

end  of  the  train  a  combination  smoking  and  baggage  car 
No.  1.  There  were  from  275  to  300  people  on  the  train 
when  it  left  Roslindale.  The  fourth  car,  No.  87,  was 
fortunately  not  so  well  filled  as  some  of  the  others. 

The  Killed  and  Wounded. 

The  dead  number  twenty-three.     Most  of  them  were 

killed  outright.     Some  survived  a  few  hours,  one  several 

days.     Over    one   hundred    were    injured,   aud   of  these 

more  than    half  received   injuries    of    a   serious    nature. 

Many  of  the  victims,  being  residents  of  Roslindale,  were 

cared   for    by   their    friends    and   relatives.     Some    were 

brought  to  the  city,  where  arrangements  were  made  by 

the  railroad  for  their  reception   at  the   hospitals ;  but  as 

soon  as  ambulances  and  other  means  of  conveyance  could 

be  obtained    most  of  the    sufferers    were    taken  to  their 

homes. 

The  History  of  the  Bridge. 

The  Bussey  Bridge  was  formerly  a  Howe  truss  wooden 
bridge.  At  that  time  portions  of  it  were  tinned  to  pie- 
vent  it  from  catching  fire,  and  it  then  acquired  the  name 
of  the  "  Tin  Bridge."  In  1870,  the  westerly  wooden 
truss  was  replaced  by  an  iron  rectangular  truss  made  by 
the  National  Bridge  Company,  of  which  Mr.  C.  II. 
Parker  was  engineer.  The  bridge  was  then  a  nondescript 
bridge,  having  one  iron  and  one  wooden  truss.  In  1876, 
the  railroad  company  removed  the  wooden  truss,  changed 
the  Parker  truss  from  the  west  side  to  the  east  side  of  the 
bridge,  and  had  a  new  iron  truss  put  on  the  west  side. 
This  work  was  done  by  Edmund  H.  Hewins,  civil  engi- 
neer. Only  two  proposals  were  made  at  that  time  to 
the  company  for  rebuilding  or  repairing  this  bridge ; 
one  from  Mr.  Parker,  representing  the  National  Bridge 
Company,  and  the  other  from  Mr.  llewins,  representing 
the  Metropolitan  Bridge  Company.  A  copy  of  the  pro- 
posal made  by  Mr.  Hewins  was  submitted  at  the  hearing, 
and    was    signed    "  Metropolitan    Bridge     Company    by 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  7 

Edmund  H.  Hewins,  agent."  It  appeared  that  there 
never  had  been  any  such  company  as  the  Metropolitan 
Bridge  Company,  Mr.  Hewins  testifying  that  it  was  his 
intention  at  that  time  to  organize  a  bridge  company,  and 
that  he  commenced  under  that  name  by  himself,  until  such 
time  as  the  organization  could  be  made,  and  it  was  in  fact 
never  consummated. 

It  further  appeared  that  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom,  the  super- 
intendent of  the  road,  and  the  superintendent  of  construc- 
tion, Mr.  George  F.  Folsom,  knew  that  the  bridge  was 
being  built  partly  at  the  Trenton  Iron  and  Steel  Com- 
pany's Works  and  partly  at  the  Phoenix  Bridge  Company's 
Works,  but  that  they  never  inquired  about  the  standing 
or  even  the  existence  of  the  Metropolitan  Bridge  Com- 
pany, and  knew  only  and  looked  only  to  Mr.  Hewins  for 
responsibility  in  the  matter.  They  had  known  him  pre- 
viously as  engineer  for  the  Moseley  Iron  Wo  ks  at  Read- 
ville,  and  his  bearing  impressed  them  as  that  of  an  able 
and  upright  man.  Mr.  A  A.  Folsom,  the  superintendent 
of  the  road,  also  testified  that  he  made  inquiry  of  one 
man,  now  dead,  in  regard  to  Mr.  Hewins,  and  received  a 
favorable  report,  and  thinks  he  may  have  inquired  of  one 
or  two  others. 

The  main  tension  members  of  the  bridge  were  made  at  the 
Phoenix  Iron  Works,  and  were  of  excellent  workmanship 
and  apparently  of  good  material.  The  rest  of  the  bridge 
was  made  at  the  Trenton  Iron  and  Steel  Company's  Works, 
also  a  reputable  company  ;  but  it  appeared  that  the  work 
there  was  done,  not  under  the  superintendence  of  the 
ofiicers  of  that  company,  but  under  the  superintendence 
of  an  agent  of  Mr.  Hewins,  the  iron  company  furnishing 
only  the  iron,  the  workmen  and  the  tools,  so  that  the 
company  did  not  and  does  not  consider  itself  responsible 
for  the  quality  of  the  iron  or  the  workmanship.  Moreover, 
Mr.  George  F.  Folsom,  the  superintendent  of  const  ruction, 
testified  that  since  1861  he  had  had  charge  of  the  construc- 
tion and  repairs  of  buildings  and  of  bridges,  that  for  ten 


8  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

years  previous  to  that  date  he  had  worked  as  a  machinist 
in  the  shops  of  the  company,  that  up  to  the  time  of  his 
appointment  as  superintendent  he  had  had  no  practical 
experience  in  bridge  building,  that  his  first  experience  in 
iron  bridge  building  was  in  connection  with  these  trusses 
in  the  Bussey  Bridge,  that  he  was  at  the  bridge  but  little 
while  the  construction  was  going  on,  that  he  had  other 
business  to  attend  to,  and  that  he  trusted  wholly  to  Mr. 
Hewins  to  build  the  bridge  properly  and  put  it  up  in 
proper  shape. 

The  work  of  putting  up  the  bridge  was  done  under  the 
superintendence  of  Mr.  Hewins  by  employees  of  the 
Boston  &  Providence  Railroad. 

It  further  appears  that  the  railroad  company  employed 
no  expert  to  pass  either  upon  the  original  design  of  the 
bridge  or  upon  the  bridge  after  it  was  constructed,  and  in 
fact  consulted  nobody  in  regard  to  it. 

If  the  management  of  the  railroad  had  taken  the  trouble 
to  make  inquiry,  it  would  have  learned  that  the  company 
which  Mr.  Hewins  professed  to  represent  did  not  in  fact 
exist,  and  that  not  only  the  design  but  the  quality  of 
much  of  the  materials  and  workmanship  of  the  bridge 
depended  solely  upon  his  ability,  honesty  and  faithfulness. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  material  and  workmanship  of 
the  compression  members  appear  to  have  been  sufficiently 
good.     The  design  in  many  of  its  details  proved  to  be  bad. 

Such  a  way  of  doing  business  would  be  lax  in  a  purely 
commercial  transaction.  In  contracting  for  and  construct- 
ing a  bridge,  in  dealing  with  a  matter  involving  the  safety 
of  life,  it  was  culpable. 

Description  of  Some  of  the  Peculiarities  of  the 
Bridge. 

The  old  rectangular  or  Parker  truss,  as  has  been  stated, 
was  removed  in  1876  from  the  west  to  the  east  side,  and 
the  new  Hewins  truss,  which  had  oblique  end-posts,  was 
erected   on  the  west  side.     The   cross   iron  floor-beams 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  9 

rested  on  top  of  the  Parker  truss,  but  were  hung  under- 
neath the  top  chord  of  the  Hevvins  truss.  The  skew  of 
the  bridge  was  so  great  that  the  floor-beam  which  ran 
from  the  centre  of  the  He  wins  truss  rested  on  the  north 
end  of  the  Parker  truss. 

Id  the  top  chord  of  the  Hewins  truss  were  three  cast- 
iron  joint-blocks,  one  at  the  centre,  and  one  at  either  end, 
against  which  the  end  posts  and  the  two  wrought  iron  sec- 
tions of  the  top  chord  abutted  and  were  held  in  position  by 
the  force  of  compression.  From  the  joint-block  at  either 
end  of  the  top  chord,  a  cross  iron  floor-beam  was  suspended 
by  means  of  two  hangers,  the  loop  at  one  end  of  each  of 
which  passed  round  a  pin  in  the  joint-block,  and  at  the 
other  end  round  a  pin  passing  through  the  two  I-beams 
constituting  the  cross  floor-beam  aforesaid.  These  hangers 
were  so  encased  in  the  joint-block  and  were  so  placed  with 
reference  to  the  I-beams  that  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
lower  side  of  the  lower  loop  could  be  seen.  Their  dimen- 
sions are  given  in  the  drawings  submitted  herewith,  which 
also  show  their  eccentricity,  so  called,  — that  is,  the  hangers 
were  so  made  that  a  line  drawn  from  the  centre  of  one  loop 
to  the  centre  of  the  other  loop  did  not  coincide  with  the 
middle  line  of  the  shank,  as  it  should  do  in  order  to  secure 
the  greatest  strength.  The  cross  floor-beams  supported  by 
these  hangers  had  also  some  additional  support  from  a 
five-inch  iron  I-post  running  down  to  the  bottom  chord. 

The  Parker  truss  was  designed  to  carry  its  load  at 
seventeen  points,  but  the  floor-beams  rested  upon  it  at 
four  points  only. 

The  trusses  were  twenty  feet  apart  from  centiv  to 
centre,  it  having  been  the  original  idea  to  put  at  some 
time  two  tracks  across  the  bridge,  but  in  reality  only 
one  track  had  ever  been  constructed,  and  that  track  \va> 
placed  close  to  the  west  or  Hewins  truss,  so  that  this 
truss  bore  about  four-fifths  of  the  weight  of  a  passing  train, 
and  the  Parker  or  rectangular  truss  bore  the  remaining 
fifth  only. 


10  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 


The  Track   from    Roslindale    to    the   Bridge,   and 

the    Rate    of    Speed    at    which    the   Train   was 

Moving. 

The  train  was  from  five  to  seven  minutes  late  when  it 
left  the  Roslindale  station.  The  distance  from  this  sta- 
tion to  the  bridge  is  about  three-fifths  of  a  mile. 

A  curve  of  two  degrees  terminates  fifty-five  feet  from 
the  bridge.  The  track  from  that  point  across  the  bridge 
and  for  forty-five  feet  beyond  is  straight. 

It  is  a  down  grade  all  the  way  from  Roslindale  to  the 
Forest  Hills  station,  the  grade  being  fifty  feet  to  the  mile. 
Professor  Swain  estimated  that  with  the  given  grade  and 
curvature,  allowing  for  ordinary  friction,  a  train  impelled 
simply  by  gravity  from  a  position  at  rest  at  Roslindale  would 
have  acquired  a  speed  of  about  twenty  miles  an  hour  when  it 
reached  the  bridge.  Walter  E.  White,  the  engineer,  teSti- 
fied  that  he  had  about  ninety  pounds  of  steam  and  worked 
steam  with  the  throttle  open  two  or  three  notches  all  the 
time  after  leaving  Roslindale,  but  that  he  had  not,  in  his 
opinion,  acquired  a  speed  of  about  more  than  fifteen  miles  an 
hour,  because  the  air  brakes  came  off  slowly  and  retarded 
the  train.  The  condition  of  the  wreck  indicated  that  the 
train  must  have  been  going  considerably  faster  than  the 
engineer  supposed.  The  experts  generally  placed  the  rate 
at  thirty  miles  an  hour  or  more. 

The  engineer  had  served  in  that  capacity  on  the  Ded- 
ham  branch  for  more  than  thirty  years.  He  knew  that 
the  rules  limited  the  speed  on  the  old  bridge  to  twelve 
miles  an  hour,  and  thought  that  the  same  rule  applied  to 
the  new  bridge.  He  did  not  know  whether  he  had  received 
any  printed  or  written  instructions  since  the  bridge  was 
rebuilt  in  1876.  If  he  had  received  any,  he  did  not  know 
where  they  were.  The  superintendent  of  the  road  subse- 
quently testified  that  the  limitation  as  to  speed  had  been 
removed  after  the  bridge  was  rebuilt  in  1876  and  he  sub- 
mitted a  printed  copy  of  the  present  ' '  Rules  and  Regula- 


SPECIAL  REPORT.  11 

tions,"  the  second  and  last  edition  of  which  was  issued  in 
1881.  It  often  happens  that  an  employee  of  long  stand- 
ing blindly  follows  routine  and  loses  sight  of  the  reason  or 
authority  which  established  the  practice.  This  may  be  a 
source  of  danger  and  should  be  guarded  against.  The 
engineer  showed  that  he  was  a  man  who  would  tell  what 
he  believed  to  be  the  truth,  no  matter  how  disastrous  the 
consequences  might  be  to  himself. 

The  Engineer's  Account  of  the  Disaster. 
The  engineer  testified  that  when  he  struck  the  bridge 
everything  seemed  to  be  all  right;  that  he  did  not  notice 
any  settling  or  swinging,  but  when  he  came  to  the  Boston 
end  of  the  bridge  he  saw  the  forward  end  of  the  engine 
come  up  with  a  jar,  and  when  the  drivers  came  along 
there  was  a  shock  ;  that  he  looked  round  and  saw  the 
forward  car  was  off  the  track,  and  that  he  had  broken 
away  from  it,  that  the  coupling  was  broken,  and  that  the 
car  was  off  the  track  and  going  to  the  east  side.  His  first 
impulse  was  to  stop.  He  reversed  the  engine  and  then 
looked  back  again,  and  saw  the  first  and  second  cars  off 
the  track,  and  a  cloud  of  smoke  coming  up  ;  then  he  knew 
the  cars  had  gone  through  the  bridge.  The  engine  had 
almost  stopped.  Then,  to  use  his  own  words,  "I  hap- 
pened to  think  that  we  two,  me  and  the  fireman,  could 
not  do  much  ourselves,  and  I  knew  there  was  help  on  the 
train  at  Forest  Hills,  who  were  going  down  to  Dedham  to 
work  on  the  bridge.  I  thought  of  all  these  things  quicker 
than  I  can  tell  it  here.  So,  quick  as  I  could,  I  put  on 
steam,  and  went  down  to  Forest  Hills.  I  blew  the  whistle 
all  the  way,  with  my  body  hanging  out  of  the  window 
and  I  saw  people  coming  out  of  doors,  and  I  kept  pointing 
up  the  track,  and  they  ran  out  of  their  houses,  and  before 
I  got  down  to  Forest  Hills  I  saw  a  good  many  going  up 
that  way ;  and  before  I  got  to  the  station  I  saw  Mr. 
Worley,  and  hollered  to  him  that  the  train  had  gone 
through    the    bridge,    and    to    throw  the  switch  to  have 


12  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Prince's  train  run  up ;  and  I  ran  clown  to  Prince's  train 
that  was  coming  on  the  outward  track,  and  hollered  to 
him  what  was  the  matter,  and  he  started  and  went  up 
there  as  quick  as  he  could.  Then  I  went  back,  and 
hollered  to  the  station  agent  and  told  him  to  telephone  for 
doctors  and  ambulances.  Then  after  Prince  had  gone  up 
with  his  train,  I  folloA?ed  up  with  my  engine." 

It  was  due  to  this  wise  action  of  the  engineer  that 
notice  of  the  catastrophe  was  immediately  received  at  the 
office  of  the  superintendent  of  the  road.  The  police  and 
fire  departments  were  summoned,  and  physicians  and  sur- 
geons were  secured  and  promptly  taken  to  the  wreck. 

The  Cause  of  the  Disaster. 

The  testimony  of  the  passengers,  of  the  employees  on 
the  train  and  of  two  outside  witnesses  shows  conclusively 
that  the  trouble  originated  on  the  north  half  of  the  bridge, 
and  the  evidence  as  a  whole  clearly  indicates  that  the  origi- 
nal cause  of  the  disaster  was  the  breaking  of  the  hangers  at 
the  joint-block  at  the  north  end  of  the  Hewins  truss.  In 
this  view  the  counsel  of  the  corporation  and  the  experts, 
including  the  expert  employed  by  the  corporation,  concur. 
These  hangers  were  found  in  the  street,  and  were  exam- 
ined by  several  people,  including  one  of  the  Commission- 
ers, on  the  morning  of  the  accident.  They  were  broken, 
the  upper  loops  with  part  of  the  shank  remaining  in  the 
joint-block  and  the  lower  loops  with  the  remainder  of 
the  shank  lying  near  by. 

One  hanger  was  broken  through  the  shank,  and  about 
seven-eighths  of  this  break  was  old.  In  the  other  hanger 
the  lower  loop  was  broken  on  the  side  and  at  its  junction 
with  the  shank.  At  the  shank  there  were  indications  of 
an  old  break  through  about  one-eighth  of  the  sectional 
area.  The  hangers  should  have  been  die  forged.  They 
were  loop  welded,  and  the  weldings  were  imperfect. 

The  eccentricity,  so  called,  of  these  hangers  was  un- 
necessary.    This    eccentricity   caused   the    strains   to    be 


i6in. 
\\  inch  squa\ 


M 


3 


18^  in. 


184-  in. 


I %.  inch  square.        "^ 

174  in. 


D 

7T 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  13 

transverse  and  unequally  distributed.  In  consequence 
thereof  the  hangers  were  for  their  work  in  the  bridge  not 
nearly  as  strong  as  the  same  amount  of  material  would 
have  been  had  they  been  properly  designed.  Portions  of 
them  without  making  any  allowance  for  the  jar  of  the  train 
were  subjected  by  each  passing  engine  to  strains  approach- 
ing, if  not  in  excess  of,  the  elastic  limit.  The  margin  of 
strength,  if  any,  was  so  small  as  to  be  inconsistent  with 
safety.  Iron  will  surely  break  if  repeatedly  subjected  to 
a  load  which  strains  it  materially  bc}*ond  its  elastic  limit. 
The  hangers  were  unfit  for  their  work.  The  wonder  is  that 
they  held  on  so  long  as  they  did.  They  had  been  break- 
ing for  some  time.  On  the  morning  of  the  accident  there 
was  little  more  than  the  equivalent  of  one  hanger  left.  ■ 

The  theory  that  the  disaster  was  due  to  a  derailment  of 
the  train  received  no  sufficient  confirmation.  On  the  con- 
trary the  fact  was  abundantly  established  by  the  evidence 
that  neither  the  ties  on  the  embankment  south  of  the 
bridge  nor  those  on  the  south  half  of  the  bridge  itself 
showed  any  signs  of  derailment.  If  a  derailment  oc- 
curred it  must  have  occurred  within  a  few  feet  of  the 
joint-block  at  the  north  end  of  the  Hewins  truss. 

A  theory  was  also  started  at  the  investigation  that  the 
disaster  might  have  been  caused  by  the  dropping  of  a 
brake  beam  between  the  ties,  but  the  theory  was  not 
supported  by  the  necessary  evidence.  If  a  brake  beam 
dropped  at  all  it  must  have  dropped  within  a  few  feet  of 
the  hangers. 

When  the  hangers  gave  way,  the  track  system,  from  the 
centre  of  the  bridgG  to  the  iron  post  near  the  abutment,  a 
distance  of  fifty-two  feet,  lost  its  main  support,  but  it  still 
had  considerable  strength,  not  sufficient  to  carry  a  train, 
but  sufficient  to  retard  somewhat  its  fall.  In  the  first 
place  there  was  the  five-inch  iron  I-post  supporting  the 
cross  floor-beam,  immediately  underneath  the  hangers. 
Then  the  track  system  had  in  itself  some  supporting 
power.     There  were  three  sections  of  sixty-foot  rails  on 


14  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

the  bridge,  extending  some  distance  on  to  the  embank- 
ment on  either  side.  The  sixty-foot  rails,  which  began 
on  the  north  embankment,  extended  on  to  the  bridge  to  a 
point  five  or  six  feet  south  of  the  angle-block  which  held 
the  broken  hangers. 

The  track  stringers,  which  rested  on  the  cross  floor- 
beams,  were  of  iron,  and  on  top  of  them  was  a  six- 
by-nine  hard-pine  beam  upon  which  the  ties  were  laid. 
This  beam  was  bolted  to  the  iron  stringers,  and  the  joints 
in  it  did  not  coincide  with  the  joints  of  the  stringers. 
Moreover  the  iron  track  stringers  were  trussed  in  such  a 
manner  that  when  they  had  fallen  a  short  distance  the 
trusses  would  operate  as  a  continuous  chain. 

A  speed  of  fifteen  miles  an  hour  is  equivalent  to  about 
twenty-two  feet  a  second ;  of  twenty  miles  an  hour,  to 
about  twenty-nine  feot  a  second  ;  of  thirty  miles  an  hour, 
to  about  forty-four  feet  a  second.  A  cannon  ball  falls 
sixteen  feet  the  first  second.  The  length  of  a  car  is  about 
fifty  feet. 

The  Wreck. 
The  strain  which  broke  the  hangers  was  probably  given 
when  the  engine  driving-wheels  passed  over  them,  and 
there  was  a  slight  depression  of  the  bridge  when  the  engine 
left  it.  This  depression  had  increased  when  the  first  car 
left  the  bridge,  so  that  as  it  went  up  off  the  bridge  it 
jumped  the  track  to  the  east,  and  its  rear  truck  was  torn 
from  it.  The  second  car  dropped  still  farther,  receiving  a 
much  more  severe  concussion  at  the  end  of  the  bridge  ; 
but  the  train  of  seven  cars  behind  it  crushed  into  its  rear 
and  threw  it  up  over  the  edge  of  the  abutment,  displacing 
both  its  trucks  and  leaving  them  under  its  rear  end. 
When  the  second  car  struck  the  abutment  the  third  car 
was  driven  against  it  with  such  force  —  that  car  being  just 
upon  the  point  of  leaving  the  solid  part  of  the  bridge 
at  the  middle  of  the  truss — that  its  Miller  platform 
was   crushed  on  top   of    and   into  the   platform   of   the 


■j. 

— 

A 

2 

i3? 

— 

•s 

U-'.J 

- 

\        $ 

E 

t,-T-' 

— 

\            A 

z. 

i2  i 

~ 

N* 

1 

|5  I 

E 

rt 

A 

0 

a*  i 

im  i 

ft 

'a  i 

~ 

10 

- 

o 

— 

'2  i 

_ 

'O  i 

- 

- 

H::j 

— 

r  *  i 

— 

r 

l-C        1 

oz 

_ 

IV,         '\ 

— 

i.M     ] 

;  o»  = 

— 

m      ' 

:  Or 

o»  - 

E 

!*    i 

lc!i 

— 

(---.; 

2z 

: 

L— 

tm.i  . 


■■■  LivKrc    Prf     ,Iiho 


THE  7TH,  STH  AND  9TH  CARS  IN  THE  S 


SPECIAL  REPORT.  15 

second  car,  and  became  inextricably  entangled  with  it. 
This  may  have  saved  the  third  car  from  going  into  the 
street,  as  it  must  have  formed  a  very  strong  and  close  con- 
nection between  the  two  cars,  and  must  have  greatly  helped 
to  carry  the  front  end  of  the  third  car  over  the  chasm. 
As  it  was,  this  car  lost  both  trucks,  its  floor  system  was 
almost  demolished,  its  sides  were  shattered  and  loosened 
at  every  joint,  and  it  was  found  on  the  embankment  a  few 
feet  behind  the  second  car,  having  lost  its  front  platform, 
which  had  finally  been  torn  out  and  remained  entangled 
with  the  rear  platform  of  the  second  car.  The  fourth  car 
was  not  able  to  leap  the  chasm.  It  had  not  however  fallen 
so  far  that  its  roof  did  not  come  above  the  line  of  the 
abutment.  The  car  was  stopped  by  the  abutment  but  the 
roof  went  on  and  landed  on  the  embankment.  The  front 
end  of  the  body  of  the  car,  striking  the  abutment  at  an  angle 
of  twenty-one  degrees,  was  crushed  in  for  about  half  its 
length,  and  the  remainder  of  the  car  veered  off  to  the 
left  or  west  side  of  the  track,  and  fell  into  the  street,  land- 
ing on  its  right  or  east  side.  The  fifth  car  followed  the 
course  of  the  remnants  of  the  fourth  car,  struck  its  rear 
end,  and  was  telescoped  by  it  for  half  its  length.  It  seems 
probable  that  the  He  wins  truss  stood  up  until  the  cast-iron 
joint-block,  in  which  the  broken  hangers  were,  was  struck 
by  the  fourth  or  fifth  car.  This  blow  knocked  out  late- 
rally the  block  and  the  two  adjoining  members  and  the 
truss  fell  to  pieces.  The  sixth  car  fell  diagonally  across 
the  street.  It  was  badly  broken  and  twisted,  and  its 
top  was  nearly  torn  off.  The  seventh  car  landed  in  the 
street  upright,  and  was  the  least  injured  of  those  which 
went  through  the  bridge.  The  eighth  car  landed  in  the 
street,  behind  the  seventh  car,  was  tipped  to  the  cast  side, 
and  was  badly  shattered.  The  ninth  car,  being  the 
bination  smoking  and  baggage  car,  turned  over  and  landed 
in  the  road  upside  down. 

Most  of  the  people  who  were  killed  were  in  the  fourth, 
fifth,  sixth  and  ninth  cars. 


16  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Suggestions  and  Warnings  to  the  Road. 

The  evidence  shows  that  there  has  been  considerable 
anxiety  on  the  part  of  passengers  in  regard  to  the  safety 
of  this  bridge,  and  in  various  ways  and  at  various  times 
this  anxiety  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
management  of  the  road.  Though  in  some  cases  this 
anxiety  was  caused  by  the  discovery  of  loose  nuts  on  the 
Parker  truss,  it  was  generally  a  vague  fear,  founded  on  no 
known  defect  in  the  bridge,  but  apparently  largely  due  to 
the  skew  of  the  bridge  and  to  the  fact  that  the  track  on 
both  sides  of  the  bridge  ran  on  high  embankments. 

In  December,  1881,  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners wrote  to  the  superintendent  of  the  Boston  & 
Providence  Railroad,  in  relation  to  this  bridge,  as 
follows  :  — 

West  Roxbury  Bridge  over  the  Highway,  near  Bussey  Farms. 
The  superstructure  of  this  bridge  is  an  oddity  among  bridges. 
If  it  has  never  been  tested  under  a  given  load,  the  Commission- 
ers suggest  whether  it  would  not  be  wise  aud  prudent  to  test  it 
now,  and  perhaps  at  stated  intervals  hereafter,  shorter  or 
loDger,  a  year  or  more,  according  to  the  behavior  of  the  bridge 
under  the  load  ;  the  test  to  consist  of  putting  on  a  load  somewhat 
heavier  than  the  bridge  is  ever  called  upon  to  bear  in  the  course 
of  your  business  ;  noting  the  load  put  on,  the  deflection  taken 
by  the  bridge  under  the  load,  and  the  amount  of  recovery  after 
the  load  is  removed ;  noting  also  its  lateral  stiffness  and 
strength.  A  series  of  such  records  would  show  conclusively 
whether  or  not  the  bridge  tested  was  maintaining  its  strength 
and  safety. 

It  appeared  in  evidence  that  shortly  after  the  receipt 
of  this  letter  a  test  of  the  bridge  was  made  ;  but  no  record 
of  such  test  was  returned  to  the  Board,  nor  was  the  test 
followed  by  a  series  of  tests,  which  the  letter  of  the  Board 
indicated  was  necessary  in  order  to  show  conclusively 
whether  the  bridge  was  maintaining  its  strength. 

It  appeared  that  examinations  of  the  bridge  had  been 
made  every  spring  and  fall    by  George  F.  Folsom,  the 


SPECIAL  REPORT.  17 

superintendent  of  construction,  and  be  described  fully 
his  method  of  going  through  the  bridge  and  examining  its 
details.  He  testified  that  he  had  detected  no  fault  in  the 
construction  of  the  bridge,  except  that  it  would  he  better 
if  made  of  fewer  pieces  ;  that  he  never  had  any  anxiety 
about  any  portion  of  the  bridge  that  was  covered  up;  that 
he  did  not  knoAV  how  the  floor-beams  under  the  joint- 
blocks  at  the  ends  of  the  truss  were  supported,  but  sup- 
posed that  they  were  supported  on  iron  stirrup  straps, 
which  he  thought  were  one  and  a  halt-inch  square  ;  thai  he 
could  not  examine  these  stirrup  straps,  and  never  thought 
they  were  an  important  feature  of  the  bridge  until  he  -aw 
them  lying  on  the  ground.  Such  was  the  examination 
made  by  the  superintendent  of  construction  to  ensure  the 
safety  of  passengers  riding  over  that  bridge. 

The  hangers  held  up  the  floor-beams.  When  the 
floor-beams  fell,  the  floor  system  would  fall,  and  yet  it 
never  occurred  to  the  man  who  was  supposed  to  have  su- 
perintended the  construction  of  the  bridge,  and  to  whom 
was  entrusted  the  examination  of  the  bridge  every  spring 
and  fall,  —  it  never  occurred  to  him  that  the  strength  and 
condition  of  these  hangers  was  vital  and  should  have  been 
an  important  feature  in  his  examination.  Moreover,  he 
did  not  know  how  the  hangers  were  made,  his  supposition 
in  regard  to  their  size  and  shape  was  incorrect,  and  he 
did  not  have,  nor  did  the  road  have,  any  drawings  .-bow- 
ing their  construction  and  dimensions. 

It  is  a  defect  in  any  bridge  if  a  vital  part,  no  matter 
what  excess  of  strength  it  may  have,  is  unnecessarily  cov- 
ered so  that  it  cannot  be  inspected.  In  this  bridge,  not 
only  was  a  vital  part  unnecessarily  covered,  but  no  one  in 
the  employment  of  the  corporation  knew  anything  about 
its  construction  or  its  strength,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  was  so  constructed  as  to  be  Mire  to  weaken  under  con- 
tinued use  and  was  insufficient  t<>  do  its  work  with  safety, 
even  had  it  been  so  placed  a-  to  be  subject  to  full  and  con- 
Htant  inspection. 


18  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

In  December,  1881.  the  Board  issued  a  circular  to  the 
Boston  &  Providence  Railroad  and  other  railroads,  re- 
specting the  proper  construction  of  bridge  floors,  which  cir- 
cular was  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Clemens  Herschel,  civil  engi- 
neer, at  that  time  a  member  of  the  Board.  This  circular  is 
printed  in  the  Commissioners'  Report  in  January,  1882. 
It  calls  attention  to  the  danger  of  knocking  to  pieces  iron 
trusses  composed  of  several  members,  in  case  a  train  is 
derailed  upon  a  bridge,  and  urges  the  great  importance  of 
devices  that  are  calculated  to  prevent  one  or  more  de- 
railed wheels  from  swerving  to  any  great  extent  from  the 
rails,  and  of  a  tie  system  that  will  support  derailed  wheels 
and  carry  them  over  tb.e  bridge  in  safety  without  catching 
between  the  ties.  The  circular  gives  diagrams  showing 
different  forms  of  track  structure  for  bridges,  designed  to 
meet  these  requirements,  in  all  of  which  guard  rails, 
guard  timbers,  and  the  laying  of  the  ties  not  more  than 
eight  inches  apart,  form  a  conspicuous  feature. 

The  circular  closes  as  follows  :  "  The  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  commend  to  the  railroads  of  this  Common- 
wealth the  consideration  of  the  examples  shown  and  of 
their  several  merits  and  defects,  and  the  application  upon 
the  bridges  within  the  State  of  a  safe  and  efficient  form  of 
track  construction,  the  essentials  of  which  seem  to  be 
strong  and  closely-laid  ties  of  sufficient  length,  guard  rails 
or  guard  timbers,  lined  with  angle  iron  ;  these  guard  tim- 
bers outside  the  track,  and  notched  and  bolted  down,  or 
else  separate  outside  stringers,  notched  and  bolted  down 
to  the  ties." 

After  the  annual  inspection  in  1882,  the  Commissioners 
further  wrote  to  the  superintendent  of  the  Boston  &  Provi- 
dence Railroad  as  follows  :  "  The  Commissioners  refer  to 
their  circular  of  Dec.  1,  1881,  for  their  views  on  the  best 
method  of  track  construction  on  bridges.  The  track  con- 
struction on  most  of  the  bridges  of  your  line  is  wanting  in 
guard  rails  or  proper  guard  timbers,  and  several  of  them 
need  the  ties  laid  closer.'* 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  19 

There  were  no  guard  rails  on  the  Bussey  Bridge  in 
1881.  There  were  none  at  the  time  of  the  disaster. 
Neither  was  there  at  either  time  any  timber  notched  and 
bolted  down,  as  suggested  in  the  circular.  There  wan 
outside  of  the  track  a  plank,  three  inches  high  by  ten 
inches  wide,  placed  a  few  inches  from  the.  track,  bolted  to 
every  third  or  fourth  tie,  but  not  notched. 

Mr.  George  F.  Folsom,  superintendent  of  construction, 
stated  that  he  had  never  known  a  train  to  be  saved  by  a 
guard  rail  ;  that  in  one  case  a  guard  plank  similar  to  the 
one  on  the  Bussey  Bridge  had  guided  a  derailed  train 
which  was  moving  slowly  across  a  bridge  on  the  Boston  & 
Providence  Railroad;  that  he  had  a  feeling  in  regard  to 
guard  rails  that  probably  there  were  cases  in  which  they 
had  done  as  much  damage  as,  if  not  more  than,  would 
have  been  done  if  they  had  not  been  used,  but  he  had 
never  known  such  a  case  to  occur;  that  it  was  a  supposi- 
tion, a  feeling  which  he  had  in  regard  to  it,  and  therefore 
he  objected  to  putting  guard  rails  on.  In  his  view-  in 
regard  to  guard  rails  he  has  been  in  the  past  and  was  at 
the  hearing  sustained  by  the  superintendent  of  the  road. 

Guard  rails  and  guard  timbers  have  been  in  use  so  long 
on  the  leading  railroads  of  the  country,  and  their  value, 
when  properly  placed,  is  so  generally  acknowledged,  that 
the  position  in  regard  to  them  taken  by  the  superintendent 
of  the  road  and  the  superintendent  of  construction  is  inde- 
fensible. 

Further,  Mr.  George  F.  Folsom,  being  unable  by  reason 
of  sickness  to  answer  certain  questions  of  the  Board  in 
regard  to  the  construction  of  the  Moor  system,  communi- 
cated information  relating  thereto  to  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom, 
the  superintendent,  in  the  following  letter,  which  was 
submitted  to  the  Board  :  — 

Boston,  March  29,  1887. 
A.  A.  Folsom,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  — The  ties  on  the  Bussey  Bridge  .ill  extended 
eighteen  inches  outside  of  rail  on  east  side,  and  were  all  eigh- 
teen inches  on  centres. 


20  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  short  ties  that  butted  against  truss  were  seven  feet  five 
inches  long ;  the  ties  at  both  ends  of  the  bridge  were  ten  feet 
long. 

The  ties  were  six  by  ten  and  eight  inches  apart.  Guard 
plank  outside  each  rail  ten  inches  wide  and  three  inches  thick 
covered  bridge  and  abutments.     Yours  truly, 

George  F.  Folsom. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  letter  that  the  superintendent 
of  construction  states  that  the  spaces  between  ties  on  this 
Bussey  Bridge  were  eight  inches.  Mr.  E.  S.  Philbrick, 
the  expert  employed  by  the  road,  and  Mr.  Thomas  Doane, 
the  expert  employed  by  the  Commissioners,  who  took 
measurements  of  the  ties  and  the  spaces  between  them  as 
they  were  found  at  the  wreck,  testify  that  the  spaces 
between  the  ties  on  this  bridge  were  from  fifteen  to  eigh- 
teen inches,  instead  of  eight  inches  as  stated  in  the  letter 
of  the  superintendent  of  construction. 

In  spite,  then,  of  the  circular  of  1881,  and  of  the  letter 
of  1882,  each  of  which  called  the  attention  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad  to  the  impor- 
tance of  having  ties  on  bridges  laid  closely  together,  the 
ties  on  this  bridge  remained  unchanged,  and  at  the  time 
of  the  accident  were  so  far  apart  that  had  a  train  been 
derailed  upon  that  bridge,  the  destruction  of  the  bridge 
would  have  been  inevitable  ;  the  spaces  between  the  ties 
were  so  great  that  the  wheels  would  have  sunk  down 
between  them,  and  the  bridge  would  have  been  wrenched 
and  torn  to  pieces.  Moreover,  if  a  brake  beam  had  fallen, 
it  would,  in  all  probability,  have  caught  between  the  ties 
and  wrecked  the  bridge.  Neither  the  superintendent  of 
the  road  nor  the  superintendent  of  construction  would 
deny  that  the  spaces  between  the  ties  on  this  bridge  were 
too  great.  As  it  happened,  the  accident  was  not  caused 
by  the  defects  of  the  tie  system,  but  the  management  is 
none  the  less  censurable  for  its  long-continued  neglect  to 
remove  this  undoubted  element  of  danger. 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  -j\ 


The  Brakes. 

It  appeared  that  seven  of  the  nine  cars  on  the  (rain 
were  supplied  with  the  Westinghouse  Automatic  brake, 
but  none  of  the  brakes  would  work  automatically  because 
the  other  two  cars  had  the  old  Westinghouse  Straight- 
air  brake.  Had  the  train  been  supplied  with  auto- 
matic brakes  throughout,  they  would  have  applied 
themselves  when  the  first  car  parted  from  the  engine  at 
the  abutment  at  the  north  end  of  the  bridge;  they  would 
have  materially  diminished  the  violence  of  the  concussion 
of  the  cars  against  the  abutment  and  against  each  other. 
and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  results  would  have 
been  less  disastrous. 

A  railroad  company  is  bound  to  use  the  utmost  dili- 
gence in  supplying  itself  with  well-approved  contrivances 
for  the  safety  of  its  passengers,  and  this  railroad  is  guilty 
of  neglect  in  not  having,  long  ago,  fitted  all  its  ears  with 
the  Westinghouse  Automatic  brake.  Economy  in  some 
portions  of  railroad  management  is  commendable,  but 
economy  which  risks  the  safety  of  passengers  is  culpable. 

The  Bkakemen. 

In  section  170,  chapter  112  of  the  Public  Statutes,  it 
is  provided  that  every  railroad  corporation  shall  cause  to 
be  stationed  on  every  passenger-train  "  trusty  and  skilful 
brakemen,  equal  in  number  at  least  to  one  for  every  two 
cars  in  the  train."  This,  being  a  train  of  nine  ears,  should 
have  been  provided  with  five  brakemen  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  the  statute.  There  were  in  fact  only 
three  brakemen.  The  Board  do  not  consider  that  the  two 
assistant  conductors  can  be  considered  as  brakemen  with- 
in the  meaning  of  the  statute.  If  they  had  duties  to  per- 
form as  conductors,  in  taking  up  tickets  or  otherwise, 
they  could  not  be  on  hand  to  apply  the  brakes  with  that 
promptness  which  is  necessary  in  case  of  an  accident,  and 
which  is  possible  for  a  brakeman   who  is  at   his  post   of 


22  BUSSEY  BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

duty  on  the  platform.  The  eighty-second  of  the  printed 
"Rules  and  Regulations"  of  the  company,  among  other 
provisions,  requires  brakemen  to  be  at  their  brakes  when 
the  train  is  moving,  except  when  called  away  by  the  direct 
order  of  the  conductor. 

Fire. 
The  cars  were  provided  with  the  Chilson  Conical  Stoves, 
one  of  which  was  placed  in  the  middle  of  each  car.  One 
fire  caught  in  the  third  car,  being  the  last  car  on  the  em- 
bankment, and  was  put  out  readily  by  the  passengers. 
At  least  two  fires  also  started  in  the  wreck  in  the  street, 
and  these  also  were  fortunately  put  out  before  they  had 
acquired  any  serious  headway.  Water  was  near  at  hand, 
and  the  passengers  and  the  people  from  the  neighborhood 
realizing  the  danger  took  immediate  measures  to  prevent 
the  added  horror  of  a  conflagration.  Their  efforts  were 
supplemented  b}'  Chemical  Engine  No.  4  of  the  Boston 
Fire  Department,  which  arrived  on  the  scene  eight  min- 
utes after  the  accident.  Though  no  one  was  suffocated  or 
burned,  the  fire  demon  was  at  work  in  the  ruins,  and  was 
only  prevented  from  gaining  the  mastery  by  a  fortunate 
combination  of  circumstances. 

Summary  and  Recommendations. 

The  conclusions  which  have  been  reached  by  the  Board 
are  as  follows  :  — 

The  contract  for  rebuilding  the  bridge  in  1876  was 
made  without  proper  examination  as  to  the  standing  of 
the  contractor. 

Those  who  acted  for  the  corporation  in  making  the  con- 
tract had  not  sufficient  knowledge  of  iron  bridge  building 
to  enable  them  to  pass  intelligently  upon  the  design  and 
specifications. 

The  design  and  specifications  for  the  bridge  were  not 
such  as  should  have  been  accepted. 

The  bridge  was  constructed  practically  without  superin- 


SPECIAL   REPORT.  23 

tcndencc  on  the  part  of  the  corporation,  and  the  corpora- 
tion neglected  to  preserve  a  copy  of  the  specifications, 
drawings  and  strain  sheets. 

The  tests  of  the  bridge  were  not  made  in  the  presence 
of  any  one  acting  for  the  corporation  who  was  qualified 
to  judge  of  their  value. 

From  the  time  of  the  construction  of  the  bridge  to  the  day 
when  it  fell,  the  railroad  company  had  caused  it  to  be  ex- 
amined by  one  man  only,  who,  year  after  year,  passed  over 
vital  parts  of  the  bridge  without  realizing  that  they  were  of 
importance.  This  man  had  been  in  the  employment  of 
the  corporation  for  a  long  series  of  years,  his  trade  was 
that  of  a  machinist,  he  had  not  been  educated  as  a  civil 
eno-ineer,  and  the  management  had  abundant  reason  to  know 
that  he  was  not  qualified,  and  had  had  no  opportunity  to 
qualify  himself,  to  do  the  work  assigned  to  him  witli  refer- 
ence to  this  bridge. 

The  series  of  tests  of  the  bridge  recommended  by  the 
Board  in  1881  was  not  made. 

In  the  erection  and  inspection  of  bridges  the  manage- 
ment of  a  railroad  is  bound  to  exercise  the  utmost  care. 
Had  such  care  been  exercised,  there  is  every  reason  In 
believe  that  the  disaster  would  have  been  prevented.  On 
the  thirty-second  page  of  the  last  report  of  the  Commission 
is  the  following  :  "  The  Board  renews  the  expression  of  its 
belief  that  a  preventible  accident  is  a  crime." 

Notwithstanding  the  repeated  warnings  of  the  Board  the 
spaces  between  the  ties  on  this  bridge  were  far  too  greal 
for  safety. 

Notwithstanding  the  recommendation  of  the  Board  in 
1881,  no  suitable  guard  rails  or  guard  timbers  were  placed 
upon  the  bridge. 

The  Westinghouse  automatic  air-brake,  a  safety  appli- 
ance, remarkable  alike  for  its  simplicity  and  effectiveness 
and  long  ago  approved  and  adopted  by  all  the  leading  rail- 
roads, was  not  in  practical  operation  on  this  train,  neither 
was  the  train  furnished  with  a  sufficienl  number  of  brake- 
men  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute. 


24  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  disaster  and  the  facts  which  have  been  disclosed, 
impose  a  grave  responsibility  on  the  board  of  directors. 
It  is  their  duty,  by  the  most  searching  inquiry,  to  ascer- 
tain forthwith  whether  any  other  work  has  been  done  in  a 
like  negligent  and  incompetent  manner,  whether  in  other 
matters  reasonable  and  well-approved  precautions  against 
accident  have  been  ignored  or  neglected,  and  whether 
false  economy  has  been  practised  and  safety  sacrificed. 
They  should  not  rest  until  they  have  taken  the  most  ener- 
getic measures,  without  regard  to  expense  and  without 
regard  to  persons,  to  correct  the  past  and  to  ensure  better 
and  safer  management  in  the  future.  So  far  as  relates  to 
bridges,  the  Directors  have  already  caused  a  thorough  ex- 
pert examination  to  be  begun.  Fortunately  there  are  but 
few  bridges  on  the  line. 

In  mitigation  of  the  sentence  of  condemnation  called 
for  by  the  foregoing  findings  and  in  support  of  the  hope 
that  the  history  of  the  Bussey  Bridge  is  exceptional,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  from  18G9,  when  the  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  was  created,  up  to  the  time  of  this  disas- 
ter, a  period  of  eighteen  years,  there  has  been  no  train 
accident  on  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad  which  re- 
sulted in  the  loss  of  a  life  of,  or  even  in  serious  injury  to, 
a  passenger. 

The  accident  furnishes  another  proof  of  the  necessity 
of  abolishing  the  deadly  car  stove. 

As  bridges  embody  many  possibilities  of  danger,  it  is 
proper  that  special  means  should  be  taken  to  secure  care- 
ful, competent  and  faithful  construction,  and  a  thorough 
and  scientific  examination  of  them  by  the  railroads  at 
regular  intervals,  followed  by  a  thorough  State  inspection. 
The  importance  of  such  action  is  emphasized  by  the 
fact  that  the  weight  of  engines  and  of  the  rolling-stock  of 
railroads  and  of  the  loads  carried  has  been  increasing  for 
many  years.  The  weight  of  engines  and  rolling-stock  has 
doubled  within  twenty  j^ears.  Moreover,  the  speed  of  the 
heavy  passenger  express  and  through  freight  trains  has 
also  largely  increased. 


SPECIAL    REPORT.  25 

The  examination  made  by  the  Board  of  Commissioners 

can  at  best  be  but  cursory.  There  arc  over  a  thousand 
bridges  in  the  State,  and  no  member  of  the  Board,  no 

matter  what  his  scientific  education  may  be,  can,  in  addi- 
tion to  his  other  duties  as  commissioner,  make  anything 
but  a  brief,  partial  and  unsatisfactory  examination  of 
them.  A  proper  inspection  in  behalf  of  the  State  would 
require  practically  the  whole  time  of  a  bridge  expert. 

The  Board  recommend  the  passage  of  an  act  re<|uirin:_r 
every  railroad,  at  least  once  in  two  years,  to  have  a 
thorough  examination  of  all  bridges  on  its  lino  made  by 
a  competent  and  experienced  civil  engineer,  who  -hall  re- 
port in  writing  to  the  corporation  and  to  the  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners  the  results  of  his  examination, 
his  conclusions  and  recommendations.  The  reports  should 
embrace  such  information  in  relation  to  the  history  and 
construction  of  each  bridge,  including  detail  drawings  and 
strain  sheets,  as  may  be  called  for  by  the  Board  of  Kail- 
road  Commissioners,  and  said  Board  should  be  author- 
ized to  employ  a  competent  expert  to  examine  such 
reports  and  make  such  further  examination  of  the  bridge 
structures  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  or  expedient. 

GEORGE   G.   CROCKER. 
EDWARD    W.    KINSLEY. 
EVERETT    A.    STEVENS, 


APPENDIX 


INQUIRY  BY  THE  RAILROAD  COMMISSIONERS 


THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  ACCIDENT  ON  THE  BOSTON 
AND  PROVIDENCE  RAILROAD,   MARCH    II.   1887. 


HEARING. 


Boston,  March  15,  1887. 

The  Board  met  at  2.30. 

The  Chairman.  This,  gentlemen,  is  an  investigation  into  the 
cause  of  the  accident  at  the  crossing  of  the  Boston  &  Providence 
Railroad  at  South  Street  in  West  Roxbury. 

The  Board  desire,  in  the  first  place,  to  examine  the  employees  who 
were  on  the  train  at  the  time  of  the  accident.  Will  those  of  them 
who  are  present  be  kind  enough  to  rise  and  be  sworn. 

(Five  gentlemen  rose  and  were  sworn.) 

Testimony  of   William  H.  Aloen. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  were  one  of  the  conductors  on  the 
train  to  which  the  accident  happened?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    What  is  your  age?     A.    Thirty-two. 

Q.    Your  residence?     A.    Dedham. 

Q.    How  long  have  you  been  a  conductor?     A.    Since  1879. 

Q.    On  this  branch ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  by  the  railroad?  A.  Since 
L873. 

Q.  What  time  did  the  train  leave  Dedham?  A.  Seven  a.m.  on 
the  14th. 

Q.  Were  there  other  conductors  on  the  train  with  you?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q  What  were  their  names?  A.  Myron  Tildon  and  Webster  N. 
Drake. 

Q.  Were  they  both  killed?  A.  Myron  Tilden  was  killed  and  the 
other  one  injured. 

Q.  Seriously  injured?  A.  Well.  I  have  not  beard  how  seriously; 
he  is  at  the  hospital,  I  believe. 

Q.  When  the  train  reached  Boslindale  was  the  train  <>n  time? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  rate  of  speed  was  it  going  when  it  came  to  the  bridge? 
A.  I  should  say  about  twelve  miles  an  hour;  somewheres  in  that 
vicinit}-. 

Q.    Is  that  the  regular  rate?     A.    Yes,  si.. 


30  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    (By  Mr.    Kinsley.)     Down    grade   at   that   point?     A.    Yes, 
sir. 

Q.    (By  the   Chairman.)     All  the  way    from   Roslindale  station? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  many  cars  were  on  the  train?     A.    Nine  cars. 
Q.    All   passenger   cars?     A.    There   were    eight   coaches   and    a 
combination  car,  making  nine  in  all. 

Q.    Where  was  the  combination  car?     A.    In  the  rear,  sir. 
Q     How  well  filled  were  they?     A.    The  forward  cars  were  very 
well  filled  ;  I  can't  say  about  the  rear  ones,  for  I  hadn't  been  through. 
Q.   How   mairy   of   the   forward   cars   do   you   know   about?     A. 
Only  two,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  persons  should  you  say  there  were  in  those?  A.  I 
should  say  there  were  eighty  or  ninety  in  the  two  together. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  train  was  Mr.  Tilden  attending  to?  A.  The 
middle  three  cars. 

Q.    And  Mr.  Drake?     A.    The  three  rear. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  how  many  people  were  in 
those  cars?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  car  were  you  at  the  time  of  the  accident?  A.  The 
second  car  from  the  engine. 

Q.    What  portion  of  the  car?     A.    About  middle  way  of  the  car. 
Q.    Now,  describe,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  what  the  nature  of  your 
experience  was.     A.    Well,  that   would    be   impossible  for  anybody 
to  do. 

Q.  When  did  you  notice  anything  out  of  the  way?  A.  I  didn't 
have  time  to  notice  anything. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  out  of  the  way  before  you  got  on  to 
the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  }tou  notice  anything  out  of  the  wTa}*  when  }rou  were  on  the 
bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  When  do  you  think  your  attention  was  first  drawn  to  the  fact 
that  there  was  something  wrong?     A.    I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Q.  Was  it  after  you  left  the  bridge?  A.  I  was  busy,  you  know, 
taking  fares,  and  I  can't  tell  exactly,  of  course. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  know  but  it  was  on  the  bridge  that  you  first 
noticed  it?     A.    I  couldn't  tell  you  anything  about  it  at  all. 

Q.  What  happened  to  you?  A.  Well,  the  first  I  knew  I  was  sit- 
ting right  on  the  floor,  in  the  middle  of  the  car,  the  seats  and  every- 
thing piled  on  top  of  me. 

Q.  Had  you  been  thrown  any  distance,  or  were  you  sitting  about 
where  you  were  standing?     A.    Some  little  distance  ;  not  far. 

Q.  Thrown  which  way?  A.  I  could  not  tell;  I  don't  know  as  I 
can  tell  which  way  it  was,  it  was  all  done  so  quick. 


APPENDIX.  31 

Q.  Do  you  think  3-011  were  thrown  towards  the  forward  «i»<l  of  tin- 
car  or  towards  the  rear?     A.    Towards  the  rear,  I  think  it  was. 

(.,).  When  a  car  stops  suddenly,  does  it  throw  you  towards  the 
rear  end  of  the  car  or  towards  the  forward  end  of  the  car?  A.  It  is 
according  to  how  it  stops.  If  you  were  standing  up.  yon  would  lie 
likely  to  be  thrown  to  the  forward  end,  sometimes;  it  is  according 
to  the  way  yon  arc  standing;  you   might  ;^o  the  other  way. 

Q.  Could  you  ever  be  thrown  towards  the  rear  end  of  the  car  i>y 
the  cur  suddenly  stopping?     A.    Oh.  yes. 

(.,).  Will  you  explain  how  that  could  be  done?  A.  1  don't  know  as 
I  can  explain  it  ;   it  has  been  done  with  inc.  I  know. 

Q.    You  found  yourself  on  the  floor?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  With  the  seats  loose?  A.  Yes.  the  cushions,  yon  know;  the 
cushion  part. 

Q.  And  some  of  them  on  top  of  you.  did  yon  say?  A.  Yea,  there 
were  two. 

Q.  Where  were  the  rest  of  the  people  in  the  car?  A.  Well,  there 
wasn't  but  three  or  four,  I  think,  in  tin-  car,  when  I  went  to  them  ; 
they  had  got  out  of  the  windows. 

().  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Were  you  stunned  in  falling?  A.  [must 
have  been  unconscious 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  When  you  picked  yourself  up,  you  found 
that  all  but  three  or  four  had  left  the  car?  A.  Well,  three  or  four; 
somewhere  in  that  vicinity. 

Q.    What  did  you  do  then?     A.    As  soon  as  I  could  get  ui\ 
together,  I  looked  in  that  car  to  see  if  there  was  anybody  in  there, 
and  then  I  got  out  of  the  car  and  went  into  the  next    one.  to  Bee   if 
there  was  anybody  in  there. 

Q.  Wait  a  moment.  You  looked  to  see  if  there  was  anybody  in 
that  car?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

(^.    Whom  did  you  find?     A.    I  didn't  find  anybody. 

Q.  You  didn't  find  even  the  three  or  lour?  A.  No.  Bir;  they  were 
just  going  out  of  the  rear  end.  where  it  was  broke  in. 

Q.   Was  anybody  killed  in  that  car?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Then  you  went  where?     A.    Into  the  next  car. 

n.     Which    do    you    mean    by    that,    the    car   in    front    or    the    car 

behind?     A.    Behind. 
Q.   The  nest  car  behind?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  there?  A.  I  didn't  find  anybody  in  thai 
one  either;  they  had  all  got  out  of  that. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  that  oar?  A.  Well,  it  was  all 
broke  ;  all  tore  to  pi< 

n.    Worse  than  your  car?      A.  Yes.  sir. 
Q.    Anybody  there?     A.    No.  sir. 


32  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then?  A.  Then  I  went  down  the  bank,  down 
side  of  the  road,  where  the  rest  of  the  cars  were,  and  looked  round 
there. 

Q.  Before  we  go  down  the  bank,  won't  you  describe  a  little 
more  accurately  what  was  the  condition  of  those  two  cars  that  you 
went  into  before  you  went  down  the  bank?  You  did  not  go  into  the 
front  car  of  the  train  at  all  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  those  two  cars?  In  the  first  place, 
describe  as  well  as  you  can  the  condition  of  the  car  in  which  you 
were  when  the  accident  happened.  A.  Well,  the  trucks  were  gone 
and  the  seats  thrown  round. 

Q.  You  say  the  trucks  were  gone.  What  do  you  mean  by  that? 
A.  Thejr  were  gone  from  underneath  the  car,  and  the  car  set  right 
down  on  the  ground,  on  the  rails. 

Q.    That  is  the  one  that  you  were  in  originally?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  go  where  the  trucks  were?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  car  in  a  line  with  the  track,  or  was  it  outside  of  the 
track?     A.    Almost  in  a  line  with  the  track. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  upper  part  of  the  car?  A.  What 
do  you  mean  by  the  upper  part? 

Q.  Where  the  people  were  sitting,  where  the  seats  were.  Was 
the  solid  part,  the  fixture  part  of  the  seats  torn?  A.  I  didn't  stop  to 
make  a  close  examination,  of  course. 

Q.  How  about  the  ends  of  the  car?  A.  One  end  was  smashed  in, 
the  end  I  got  out  of. 

Q.    Which  end  was  that?     A.    The  rear  end. 

Q.  How  much  smashed  in,  how  far  into  the  car?  A.  Not  very 
far  into  the  car,  but  the  end  was  about  all  gone. 

Q.  Should  you  say  it  was  smashed  five  feet  from  the  end  of  the 
car?     A.    Oh,  no;  not  as  much  as  that. 

Q.  Was  the  end  partition  of  the  car  knocked  in?  A.  Parts  of 
it. 

Q.  How  about  the  platform ?  A.  I  don't  remember  about  that  at 
all. 

Q.  Do  }rou  remember  how  you  got  out  of  that  car,  whether  you 
went  out  on  to  anything  like  a  platform  or  not?  A.  I  remember 
stepping  on  to  a  piece  of  iron  ;  I  should  say  it  was  the  railing,  or 
something  of  that  sort,  of  the  car. 

Q.    Did  you  climb  out,  or  did  you  walk  out?     A.    I  climbed  out. 

Q.  Then  you  got  into  the  next  car  behind  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  next 
car  behind  the  one  I  was  in. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  into  that?  A.  That  one  I  walked  right  in  ; 
the  door  was  gone,  or  was  open,  I  don't  know  which.  I  walked  right 
into  that. 


APPENDIX.  33 

Q.    Did  you  get  down  out  of  the  first  car  on  to  the  ground,  and 
then  up  into  the  second?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  were  the  cars  situated?     Were  they  righl  up  elose  to  each 
other,  or  were  they  separate?     A.    Very  close;  not  way  up  bo 
other,  but  perhaps  five  feet  apart. 

Q.    Were  they  united  together,  or  were  they  t<>ni  apart  ?     A. 
apart. 

Q.    Separated  from  each  other?     A.   Yes,  sir. 
Q.    What  was  the  condition  of  the  rear  car  that  you  went  into? 
A.    That  was  very  much  wrecked. 

Q.    How  was  it  wrecked?     A.    Well,  the  roof  was  wrecked. 
Q.    That  was  the  third  car?     A.    That  was  the  third  ear  from  the 
engine. 

Q.    The  roof  was  wrecked?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  and  the  side  was  sn. 
a  little,  not  a  great  deal,  —  bent  out  and  the  trucks  gone. 
Q.    The  trucks  also  gone  to  that?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    Do  you  know  where  the  trucks  were  ?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    You  didn't  look  for  them  afterwards?     A.    No.  sir  ;   1  didn't. 
Q.    Do  you  think  anybody  was    killed  in    that  car?     A.    I  don't 
think  there  was  :  still,  I  don't  know.     There  wasn't  anybody  in  there 
when  I  went  there. 

Q.   Was  there  any  other  car  on  the  Boston  side  of  the  bridge? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  that  was  all  there  was,  those  three. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  car  from  the  bridge;  have  you  any  ilea? 
A.    No  ;  I  couldn't  say. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  within  a  few  feet,  or  the  length  of  a  car? 
A.    It  must  have  been  the  length  of  the  car  there. 

Q.   Then  you  went  down  the  embankment?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    What  did  you  do  then?     A.    Well,  we  helped  all  we  could  to 
get  the  wounded  and  dead  out  of  the  wreck. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  work  first?  A.  Right  under  the  bridge  : 
right  under  the  original  bridge. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  which  car?  A.  I  could  not  tell  yon  what 
the  number  of  the  car  was. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  or  was  not  the  fourth  car?  A.  I  could  QOt 
tell  you  which  one  it  was  ;   I  did  not  take  any  particular  DOl 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kixsu-y.)  Which  side  of  the  bank  did  you  go  down? 
A.   As  you  go  in  from  Boston,  I  went  down  on  the  right-hand  Bide. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  That  is,  on  the  north  side  of  the  bank? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  suppose  so. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  passed  by  any  cars,  or  whether 
you  went  to  the  first  one  you  came  to?  A.  No;  I  went  to  the  first 
car. 

Q.    Describe,  as  well  as  you  can,  all  you  found    there,      A.    We 


34  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

found  men  and  women  in  there ;  I  could  not  say  how  many  ;  we  got 
them  out  the  best  we  could. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  trouble  there  ?  Was  the  car  that 
you  were  working  upon  standing  upright,  or  was  it  on  its  side,  or  was 
it  on  its  end,  or  how?  A.  Well,  partly  on  the  side,  about  so  (indi- 
cating at  an  angle). 

Q.  Was  one  car  on  top  of  another?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  were  kind 
of  shot  over,  one  over  the  other,  like  that  (indicating) . 

Q.  Which  was  over,  do  you  remember?  A.  I  don't  remember  the 
numbers  of  them  ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  a  rear  car  that  came  over  a  front  one,  or 
a  front  car  that  was  over  a  rear  car?  A.  I  could  not  tell  you  ;  I  don't 
know  how  the}'  were  situated  in  the  train. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  evidences  of  fire?  A.  We  did,  a  long  while 
after  we  got  all  of  them  out ;  there  was  a  little  mite,  nothing  to  hurt 
anything  at  all. 

Q.  After  you  got  them  out?  A.  Yes,  sir.  I  don't  know  where  it 
came  from,  I  am  sure.     It  didn't  set  fire  to  any  wood. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean,  then,  by  seeing  fire  ;  what  was  it,  —  coals? 
A.   Yes. 

Q.  Where  was  that?  A.  That  was  right  where  I  was  speaking 
of;  where  we  were. 

Q.  Was  there  a  stove  right  there  ?  A.  I  didn't  see  any  ;  I  couldn't 
tell  whether  there  was  a  stove  right  there  or  not. 

Q.    That  was  the  fire  that  you  saw?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  that  had  not  set  fire  to  any  wood?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  persons  did  3*ou  assist  in  taking  out?  A.  I  could 
not  tell  you,  sir,  I  am  sure. 

Q.  About  a  dozen,  or  twenty,  or  more?  A.  Well,  I  shouldn't 
want  to  say  how  many,  because  I  don't  really  know  how  many  there 
were. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  some  idea  whether  it  was  one  or  twenty,  haven't 
you?     A.    Well,  there  were  more  than  one,  sure. 

Q.  Did  you  take  out  any  dead  bodies  ?  A.  Well,  there  were  two 
that  were  dead. 

Q.  Did  you  see  an}r  other  dead  bodies?  A.  Yes,  I  saw  two  or 
three  more  taken  out,  but  I  didn't  assist  in  taking  them  out. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  assistance  which  you  gave  down 
there?     A.    What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Q.  How  did  you  go  to  work  down  there  ?  Pulling  people  out,  was 
it,  or  tearing  away  the  wreck,  or  what,  did  you  do?  A.  We  tore 
away  part  of  the  windows  and  the  frames,  took  the  frames  out,  and 
took  them  out  that  way. 

Q.    How  long  did  you  stay  there?     A.    I  think  it  was  about  eleven 


APPENDIX. 

o'clock  when  I  left  there,  or  a  quarter  of  eleven  ;  BOmewhere  in  that 
vicinity. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examination  of  the  rest  of  the  train,  to  sec 
what  its  condition  was?  A.  I  looked  the  length  of  the  train;  yea, 
sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  cars;  how  were  they  placed? 
A.  There  was  one  car  that  set  right  down  on  the  iron,  upright. — 
stood  upright.     There  were  a  few  windows  broken  in  it. 

Q.  Which  car  was  that?  A.  I  forget  the  number  of  it;  it  was 
either  80  or  81.     I  don't  remember  which  one  it  was. 

Q.  No;  but  which  one  in  the  train?  A.  Well,  if  it  was  80  it 
would  be  next  the  smoker;  if  81,  it  would  be  the  next  to  that,  the 
third  car  from  the  rear. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  on  the  iron?  A.  It  was  on  the  iron  of  the 
bridge.  When  the  bridge  fell,  it  seemed  as  though  the  car  went  right 
down  with  it,  and  stood  upright. 

Q.  You  don't  mean  by  "iron"  that  it  was  still  on  the  track? 
A.    Oh,  no,  —  on  the  iron  of  the  bridge,  that  was  originally  the  bridge. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  cars?  A.  The  smoker— that  is  the 
combination  car,  we  call  it  the  smoker  — was  turned  completely  over; 
it  laid  on  the  monitor,  right  in  the  road. 

Q.  Did  you  assist  anybody  out  of  that?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  get 
back  as  far  as  that.  They  had  taken  them  all  out  of  that  before  I 
got  there. 

Q.  Now,  the  cars  in  front  of  the  smoker, —you  say  there  was 
one  standing  upright?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  were  the  others?  A.  There  was  one  that  was  kind  of 
canted  round  cornerwise.  That  is  the  one  I  spoke  of.  It  would  be 
over  a  little  on  one  side,  this  way  (indicating).  1  forget  how  the 
other  one  was,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  laid  up  against  the  abutment 

more. 

Q.    How  many  cars  were  there  down  in  the  road?     A.    Supposed 

to  be  six  ;  there  were  three  up  on  the  track. 

Q.    Are  you  sure  there  were  nine  cars  in  the  train?     A.    V- 

Q.   How  do  you  know  that?     A.    I  counted  them  before  they  left 

Dedham. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  made  up  the  train  at  Dedham,  did 
you?     A.    Yes,  sir,  and  ordered  the  brakeman  to  have  nine  i 

().    (By  the  Chairman.)     Do  you  usually  run  with  nine  cai 
Monday  mornings  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  felt  any  peculiar  motion  on  that  bridge  in 
going  over  it?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  felt  any  jar  of  the  train  a.  i:  was  leaving  the 
bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 


36  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  you  never  spoken  to  anybody  and  said  that  you  didn't 
like  that  bridge  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Ever  had  any  special  anxietj' in  regard  to  that  bridge?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Are  you  very  sure  that  you  never  noticed,  as  the  train  left  the 
bridge,  ajar  of  the  cars?     A.    I  never  did,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  an  iron  bridge  or  a  wooden  bridge?  A.  It  was  an 
iron  bridge,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  distinguish  that  bridge  from  other  bridges  ;  have 
}Tou  an}T  particular  name  for  it?  A.  We  always  called  it  amongst 
the  boys  the  Bussey  Bridge. 

Q.  Any  other  name  for  it  that  you  ever  heard?  A.  Not  that  I 
know  of;  I  have  never  heard  one. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Mr.  Alden,  can  you  give  the  numbers 
of  those  cars  in  their  order  as  they  started  from  Dedham?  A.  I  can, 
part  of  them. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  do  so?  A.  The  first  three,  —  the 
first  one  was  52  ;  the  second  one  was  18  ;  the  third  one  was  28. 

Q.  Those  were  your  cars  distinctively?  A.  Those  were  the  three 
cars  that  I  had  charge  of. 

Q.  The  next  ones  ?  A.  I  don't  know  what  they  were  ;  but  there 
was  the  middle  of  the  train  ;  I  don't  know  what  the  numbers  were,  but 
in  the  rear  there  was  82  and  81  and  80. 

Q.    You  are  still  running  backwards,  are  you?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Still  running  backwards  to  No.  1,  the  combination  car?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  a  combination,  smoker  and  baggage?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
all  in  one  car. 

Q.  And  the  next  one  to  the  combination  car  was  80,  then  followed 
81  and  then  82?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  given  us  seven.  Can  you  give  us  the  numbers 
of  the  other  two  cars,  which  would  be  the  fourth  and  fifth?  No 
matter  whether  you  give  them  in  their  order  or  not.  A.  I  think  54 
was  one,  and  the  other  one  I  don't  know  what  it  was.  It  was  80 
something  ;  I  could  not  tell  you  whether  it  was  85,  86,  or  what  it 
was. 

Q.  Now,  Conductor  Drake  had  charge  of  the  last  three  cars?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.   That  is,  81,  80  and  the  No.  1  combination?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  through,  on  the  way  from  Dedham  to  Roslindale, 
any  of  the  other  cars  than  your  own  three?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  accustomed  to  inspect  the  whole  train  at  every  station, 
are  you  not,  to  see  how  many  passengers  get  in  ?  A.  What  do  you 
mean  by  that? 


APPENDIX.  37 

Q.  That  is,  you  stand  outside  of  the  train,  and  see  how  many 
passengers  get  in  the  whole  train,  and  then  von  start  the  train?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  when  they  get  in. 

Q.  Can  you  give  the  Board  any  idea  how  many  passengers  got  in 
at  the  various  stations?     A.    No,  sir;   I  can't. 

Q.     Not  approximately  ?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.    You  had  charge  of  the  whole  train,  had  you  not?     A.    V 

Q.   And  the  others  were  assistant  conductors?     A.    Assistants. 

Q.    The  first  car,  which  was   No.  52,  you   have  described 
what  as  it  lay  there  after  the  accident.     Did  you  examine  the  shack- 
ling gear  in  front  of  the  first  car?     A.    No,  sir,  not  particularly. 

Q.  You  don't  know  whether  that  gear  was  broken  or  not?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  testified  that  3*011  were  thrown  backwards,  Mr. 
Alden.  Knowing  now  the  character  of  the  accident,  would  you  not 
rather  say  that  your  being  thrown  backwards  was  attributable  to  the 
engine  carrying  the  train  forward  by  a  sudden  movement?  A.  I 
can't  tell  you  what  it  was. 

Q.    Did  you  feel  an}'  sudden  forward  motion  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  both  the  trucks  of  the  forward  car — the  one  next  to  the 
engine  — gone,  or  only  one?     A.    Only  one. 

Q.   The  tender  had  gone  with  the  engine,  had  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  out  of  the  car,  the  tender  and  engine  had 
gone?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  believe  that  went  up  the  track,  to  give  the  alarm?  A.  To 
Forest  Hills. 

Q.    Who  was  the  engineer?     A.    Walter  E.  White. 

Q.   Who  was  the  fireman  ?     A.    Albert  Billings. 

Q.    Were  either  of  them  injured  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  What  brakemen  were  on  the  train?  A.  John  Tripp,  —  he 
was  on  the  forward  cars. 

Q.    Where  does  he  live  ?     A.    He  lives  in  Dedham. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  car  did  he  occupy?  A.  He  was  between  the 
two  forward  cars.  That  is,  I  don't  know  whether  lie  was  there  at  the 
time  of  the  accident;  he  was  probably  in  the  forward  car. 

Q.  Who  was  the  next  brakeman?  A.  The  next  one  was  Winfield 
Smith. 

Q.   Where  does  he  live  ?    A.    He  lives  in  Dedham. 

Q.   Where  was  he  stationed  ?     A.    Between  the  fourth  and  fifth. 

Q.   And  the  next?    A.   The  next  was  Elisha  Annis. 

Q.    Where  does  he  live?     A.    Dedham. 

Q.    AVhere  was  he  stationed?     A.    In  the  combination. 

Q.    Did  he  also  have  charge  of  the  baggage  part  of  th 
Yes,  sir. 


38  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Was  his  proper  place  in  the  car,  or  on  the  outside?  A.  I 
could  uot  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  Were  an}'  of  these  brakemen  killed  or  injured  ?  A.  The  middle 
man,  the}7  say,  was  injured  very  bad  ;  that  is  Winfield  Smith. 

Q.  Is  Mr.  Tripp  present  here?  A.  Mr.  Tripp  is  present, — yes, 
sir. 

Q.    And  Mr.  Annis?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  wide  the  top  of  the  embankment  is  at 
the  point  where  your  car  was  left?     A.    No,  I  don't. 

Q.  Now,  besides  the  cars  that  you  have  mentioned  as  being  on  the 
embankment  on  the  Boston  side  of  the  bridge,  there  was  the  top  of 
one  car,  was  there  not?     A.    I  didn't  notice. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  think  if  there  are  any  photographs  of  the  scene 
of  the  wreck,  possibly  they  might  be  of  assistance  to  the  Board  in 
conducting  the  examination.     Have  you  any,  Mr.  Putnam? 

Mr.  Putnam.  No.  My  impression  is  some  photographs  were 
taken,  but  it  is  altogether  too  soon  to  get  proofs. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  understood  that  some  were  in  the  possession  of 
the  road. 

Mr.  Putnam.  They  must  have  been  proofs,  then.  I  have  not 
seen  any.  As  soon  as  they  are  made,  they  shall  be  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Commissioners.  I  understood  to-day,  when  I  inquired  for  them 
myself,  that  they  were  not  completed.  I  have  not  even  seen  a  proof 
myself. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  both  trucks  were  gone  from  the  second 
car?     A.    They  were. 

Q.    Were  both  gone  from  the  third  car  ?     A.    They  were. 

Q.  And  you  saw  none  of  those  trucks  on  the  embankment?  A.  I 
didn't  notice  them  ;  but  still,  of  course,  I  didn't  make  any  close  ex- 
amination there. 

Q.  Is  there  any  way  in  which  you  can  describe  or  identify  those 
cars  by  their  construction  or  color?  A.  Well,  I  might;  some  of 
them. 

Q.  Won't  you  tell  us  the  differences,  if  you  can?  Take  the  last 
six  cars  more  especially.  A.  Well,  there  was  80,  81  and  82  all  alike, 
painted  alike.     The  combination  car  was  darker. 

Q.  Red  cars?  A.  Yes,  they  were  red;  but  the  combination  was 
darker.     It  hadn't  been  painted  so  lately  as  the  others,  you  know. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  car  52  had  been  running  on  the  road? 
A.    I  can't  tell  you. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  it  to  be  used  on  the  road?  A.  I 
could  not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  Was  it  an  old-fashioned  car?  A.  It  was,  you  might  say, 
almost  a  new  car,  because  it  had  been  newly  remodelled  and  fixed  up. 


APPENDIX. 

Q.   Do  you  know  whether  the  trucks  were  new  or  old?     A. 

say  as  to  that. 

Q.   How  about  is,  —  was  that  a  new  car?     A.    No.     I 
how  many  years  it  had  been  running,  but  thru  it  was  not  a  new  car. 

Q.   How  long  should  you  say  18  had  been  on  the  i 
not  tell  you  how  long, 

Q.    Several  years?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  28?      A.    Several  years:   but   I  don't  know  how  mi 
course. 

Q.    Was  28  what  you  would  call  an  old  ear?     A.    V-  ■-. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  tell  us  the  number  of  the  next  car?  A.  [could 
not. 

Q.    You  can't  do  that?     A.    No.  sir. 

Q.    Xor  describe  the  car  in  any  way?     A.    I  could  not ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  where  any  of  the  last  six  cars  lay  as  they  fell? 
A.  Well,  the  smoker,  the  combination  car,  lay  alongside  of  the  abut- 
ment, bottom  up. 

Q.  Parallel  with  the  abutment?  A.  Almost  parallel  with  the 
abutment. 

Q.  That  was  turned  upside  down  absolutely,  was  it,  and  resting 
on  its  top?     A.    Yes,  sir;  on  the  monitor. 

Q.    Was  its  full  length  on  the  ground?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

o.  Was  it  parallel  with  the  abutment,  or  diagonally  across?  A.  I 
should  say  it  was  very  near  parallel  with  it ;  I  can't  say  exactly,  . if 
course. 

Q.  That  is,  in  the  direction  of  the  street,  lying  on  the  line  of  the 
street?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  where  any  of  the  other  cars  lay?  A.  There 
was  one  car,  as  I  sa}-,  that  was  upright.  The  number  of  that  car  I 
can't  tell,  exactly. 

Q.  Canyon  tell  us  the  number  of  any  of  the  other  cars?  A  I 
could  not. 

Q.    What  is  the  usual    number   of  cars  on   that  7   o'clock    train? 
A.    We  run  nine  cars  Monday  mornings,  and  eight  every  other 
ing  of  the  week  except  Sundays;  of  coin  run  then. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  official  instruction  from  the  road  as  to  the 
running  of  the  trains  over  that  bridge?     A.    No,  sir;   1  have  not. 

Q.    Did  you  ever  have ?    A.    The  engineer  has  that ;  he  has 
of  that  part  of  it. 

Q.  So  that  you  do  not  receive  any  instruct 
speed,  or  anything  of  that  kind?  A.  Of  coi. 
neer  has  the  whole  charge  of  that  bush 

Q.  There  is  a  curve  in  the  road  on  the  Roslindale  side  of  the 
bridge,  is  there  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 


40  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Does  that  curve  or  did  that  curve  extend  on  to  the  bridge? 
A.    I  don't  think  it  does. 

Q.  Did  it  extend  up  to  the  bridge?  A.  I  could  not  say  how  close 
to  it. 

Q.    But  quite  close?     A.    I  don't  think  it  goes  to  the  bridge. 

The  Chairman.  I  suppose  we  could  get  better  evidence  in  regard 
to  that  from  the  engineer  of  the  road,  and  from  drawings. 

Mr.  Williams.  Undoubtedly,  in  detail,  but  I  wish  to  ask  him  as 
to  the  effect  of  that  curve  on  the  train  as  it  came  down  from  Ros- 
lindale  ;  that  is  my  onby  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course  it  is  best  to  get  the  information  from 
the  parties  who  know  best,  rather  than  to  spend  time  in  asking  a  man 
who,  perhaps,  doesn't  know  anything  about  it.  I  do  not  want  to 
waste  an}'  time  ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Williams.  Undoubtedly,  j'our  Honor.  I  ask  that  with 
reference  to  the  train  as  it  comes  from  Roslindale  on  to  the  bridge. 

Q.  It  has  a  swing  upon  the  curve  as  it  touches  the  bridge,  has  it 
not,  Mr.  Alden?     A.    I  didn't  notice  anything. 

Q.  In  which  direction  is  the  curve,  — to  the  left  or  to  the  right  as 
you  go  towards  Dedham?     A.    The  curve  swings  this  way. 

Q.   That  is,  to  the  left?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whether  you  have  ever  noticed,  coming  from  Roslindale,  a 
swinging  motion  to  the  cars  as  they  came  on  to  the  bridge  past  the 
curve?     A.    I  never  noticed  anything. 

Q.    Or  going  in  the  other  direction?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  have  given  the  names  of  three 
brakemen;  were  there  any  other  brakemen  on  the  train?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  that  is,  none  that  were  employed  on  that  train. 

Q.  No  other  brakemen  engaged  in  running  the  train?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Testimony  of  Walter  E.  White. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)    What  is  your  residence?     A.    Dedham. 

Q.  And  your  age?     A.    Fifty-two. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  by  the  Boston  &  Provi- 
dence Railroad?     A.    About  thirty-three  or  thirty-four  3'ears. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  an  engineer  on  the  road?  A.  I 
couldn't  tell  exactly.     Somewhere  about  thirty-one  years,  I  guess. 

Q.  And  before  you  were  emplo3*ed  on  the  Boston  &  Providence 
Railroad  what  were  you  doing?     A.    I  learned  the  moulder's  trade. 

Q.  What  trains  have  3'ou  run  on  the  Boston  &  Providence 
Railroad?     A.    I  have  always  been  on  the  Dedham  branch. 

Q.    Thirt3'-one  3'ears  on  the  branch?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Always  on  this  branch  or  the  other  branch?  A.  Both 
branches. 


APPENDIX.  41 

Q.   Running  on  both  branches  to  Dedham?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  are  your  instructions  in  regard  to  the  r:U<'  of  speed  over 
that  part  of  the  road  where  the  accident  happened  ?     A.   Twelve  miles 

an  hour,  I  think. 

Q.  Have  you  any  written  instructions?  A.  The  rule  used  to  be 
on  the  old  bridge  twelve  miles  an  hour,  and  I  think  the  same  rule  is 
on  the  new  bridge,  but  I  won't  be  positive  ;  I  won't  swear  to  that. 

Q.    On  the  old  bridge  it  was  a  written  rule?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    "Written  instructions  to  you  ?   A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  received  any  written  instructions  or  printed  msl ruc- 
tions in  regard  to  this  bridge?  A.  I  can't  remember,  it  is  so  long 
ago.     If  I  have,  I  have  forgotten  it. 

Q.    What  was  your  rate  of  speed  at  this  bridge?     A.    I  should  say 
we  were  running  from  twelve  to  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  as   ceai 
could  tell,  in  my  judgment. 

Q.    What  is  the  grade  there,  —  down  grade  or  up  grade  ?     A. 
grade  coming  towards  Boston. 

Q.    Where  from?     A.    From  Roslindale. 

Q.  Where  does  the  down  grade  begin?  A.  It  begins  at  Highland 
station,  above  Roslindale. 

Q.  And  what  is  the  grade?  A.  Sixty-five  feet,  I  believe  ;  sixty  or 
sixty-five. 

Q.  How  far  from  this  bridge  is  the  Roslindale  station?  A.  About 
a  quarter  of  a  mile  ;  might  be  a  little  more. 

Q.  In  that  time  you  got  up  a  speed  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  miles 
an  hour?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  behind  time?  A.  Well,  a  very  little.  I  took  out 
my  watch  after  leaving  Roslindale  that  morning,  and  I  believe  it  was 
eighteen  minutes  past.     That  was  after  I  got  started 

Q.  What  was  your  proper  time  for  Leaving  Roslindale?  A.  We 
ain't  timed  there  at  Roslindale.  I  am  allowed  fifteen  minutes  to  For- 
est Hills  from  Dedham. 

Q.    How  long  would  it  have  taken  you   naturally  logo   froi 
lindale  to  Forest  Hills?     A.    Well,  with  nine  ears  it  would  have  taken 
me,  as  I  usually   come  down   there,   about   four  minutes.    I    should 
say. 

Q.  So  that  you  were  seven  minutes  late:  A.  No.  1  wasn't  so  late 
as  that. 

Q.    Eighteen  and  four  are  twenty-two  minutes  past.     If  you  wen- 
due  at  Forest  Hills  at  fifteen  minutes  past,  that  would  make  yo 
minutes  late,  wouldn't  it?     A.    Yes.  you  might  say  BO,  from  there. 

Q.   Were  you  hurrying  up  for  that  reason?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  fast  do  you  go  over  that  bridge?  A.  A.bout  fifteen  milea 
an  hour.     It  is  a  place  where  I  generally  run   slow.     If  I  fi] 


42  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

running  a  little  fast  I  shut  steam  off;  if  I  ain't,  I  work  steam.  It  is 
according  to  how  I  am  loaded. 

Q.  If  you  have  any  instructions  in  regard  to  the  speed  over  that 
bridge  where  would  they  be  ?  You  say  you  don't  remember  whether 
you  ever  had  any  instructions  in  regard  to  your  speed  over  that  bridge 
since  the  new  bridge  was  built?  A.  I  think  I  have,  but  I  won't  say 
positive. 

Q.  If  you  have  had  them,  where  would  they  be?  Would  you  have 
them  on  your  engine?  A.  I  take  them  on  the  engine,  and  they  get 
dirty  and  wear  out. 

Q.  How  long  ago  would  they  have  been  given  to  you  ?  A.  If  I 
had  any  instructions  I  must  have  had  them  when  the  bridge  was  first 
built. 

Q.  How  long  ago  was  that?  A.  It  must  have  been  all  of  ten 
years,  I  should  say. 

Q.    About  ten  years  ago?     A.    I  won't  say  positively. 

Q.  Whether  or  not  you  have  those  instructions  anywhere  now? 
A.    I  don't  know  ;  I  don't  think  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  you  could  get  a  copy  of  them?  A.  No,  I 
don't. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  you  were  ever  authorized  to  go  faster  than 
twelve  miles  an  hour  over  that  bridge  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  don't  think  I 
ever  was. 

Q.  But  you  have  been  in  the  habit  of  going  from  twelve  to  fifteen 
miles  an  hour?  A.  Twelve  to  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  I  should  say,  as 
near  as  I  can  calculate. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  justified  ingoing  fifteen  miles  an  hour  over  it? 
A.    Well,  as  near  as  my  judgment  would  tell. 

Q.  Why  did  you  feel  justified  in  going  more  than  twelve  miles  an 
hour  over  it?  A.  I  don't  know  as  I  felt  justified,  but  I  run  ten  or 
fifteen  miles  an  hour  as  near  as  I  could  calculate,  running  along.  I 
couldn't  tell  whether  it  was  going  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour ; 
somewheres  about  there,  as  near  as  we  can  calculate.  We  calculated 
to  go  down  over  that  bridge  slow  ;  that  is  the  idea  ;  that  is,  not  to  go 
very  fast.     We  have  other  places  to  run  where  we  want  to  run  faster. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  go  over  that  bridge  faster  than  you  were  going 
yesterday  morning?  A.  I  may  have  been  over  faster,  but  I  don't 
know  when. 

Q.  Were  you  going  about  as  fast  as  you  ever  go  over  it?  A.  With 
nine  cars,  I  was  working  along  about  as  smart  as  I  could.  Being 
heavily  loaded,  I  couldn't  run  much  more  than  twelve  to  fifteen  miles 
an  hour. 

Q.  When  you  came  to  the  bridge  it  looked  to  be  all  right  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 


APPENDIX.  43 

Q.  What  was  the  first  thing  that  you  noticed  wrong?  A.  When  I 
struck  on  the  bridge  everything  seemed  to  be  all  right.  I  noticed  no 
settling  nor  no  swinging  ;  but  when  I  came  to  this  Boston  end  of  the 
bridge  I  see  the  forward  end  of  the  engine  come  up  with  a  jar,  and 
when  the  drivers  came  along  there  was  a  shock.  1  looked  round  and 
see  the  forward  car  was  off  the  track  and  that  I  had  broke  away  from 
it.     The  coupling  broke. 

Q.  How  soon  did  the  coupling  break?  A.  I  should  say  the 
instant  I  looked  round,  the  car  was  oil'  the  track.  When  I  looked 
round  I  see  I  was  parted  from  the  train  and  the  car  was  off  the  track 
and  going  to  the  left-hand  of  the  track.  Going  out,  it  would  be  to 
the  east.     The  car  went  that  way,  towards  the  east. 

Q.  On  your  left  going  out  and  on  your  right  coming  in?  A.  On 
my  right  coining  in. 

Q.  What  did  you  do?  A.  An  engineer,  when  he  sees  anything  of 
that  kind,  his  first  impulse  is  always  to  stop  the  train.  I  reversed  her, 
and  as  I  was  about  stopping  I  happened  to  think,  and  I  looked  back 
and  saw  the  first  and  second  cars  off  the  track.  I  continued  to  look 
back  and  saw  a  cloud  of  smoke  coming  up,  and  then  I  knew  they  had 
gone  through  the  bridge  ;  and  I  happened  to  think  that  they  needed 
more  help,  —  we  two  couldn't  do  much.  —  and  then  I  put  her  into  my 
head-gear  and  went  down  to  Forest  Hills  as  quick  as  I  could  and  sum- 
moned help. 

Q.    You    reversed  your   engine    soon    after   you    left   the    1 
A.    The  instant  I  turned  round  I  jumped  off  of  my  seat,  and  as  I  saw 
they  were  off  the  bridge  I  hauled  her  right  over.     No  time  at  all ;  not 
as  long  time  as  it  takes  to  tell  it. 

Q.   You  kept  her  reversed  how  long?     A.    She  came   almost 
stop. 

Q.  How  soon  did  the  first  car  break  away?  A.  Just  as  quick  as 
.1  had  time  to  look  round  I  see  I  was  parted  from  the  train,  and  the 
car  was  off  the  track. 

Q.  Then,  when  the  engine  was  reversed  you  were  disconnected 
from  the  next  car?     A.   The  coupling  had  broken. 

().    Was  the  next  car  pressing  against  the  engine?     A.    le- 
as to  that. 

Q.  You  had  reversed  the  engine?  A.  I  had  broke  away  from  the 
cars.     I  reversed  the  engine  after  I  broke  away  from  the  car-. 

().  How  far  do  you  suppose  you  had  -one  after  you  left  the 
bridge,  before  your  engine  was  reversed?  A.  I  don't  flunk  that  I 
had  -one  more  than  the  length  of  four  or  five  cars  before  I  had  the 
engine  reversed. 

Q.  And  the  first  car  had  broken  away  from  you  before  you  re- 
versed, had  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 


44  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  And  how  far  out  on  the  side  was  it?  A.  It  was  running  along 
very  near  parallel ;  it  was  running  along  kind  of  teetering. 

Q.  It  was  not  on  the  track?  A.  Partly  it  was  on  the  track.  The 
forward  truck  part,  I  think,  was  about  in  the  middle,  I  should 
say. 

Q.  Were  the  wheels  of  the  front  car  on  the  track  after  they  left 
the  bridge?     A.   No,  sir;  they  were  on  the  ground. 

Q.  And  they  had  been  thrown  off  to  the  right  of  the  track,  had 
they?  A.  To  the  right  of  the  track  coming  in,  and  the  coupling 
had  broken. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  that?  A.  Because  I  left  the  train  ;  because 
I  was  running  away  from  the  train. 

Q.  Then  what  was  the  effect  when  you  reversed  the  engine?  A. 
She  stopped  as  much  as  she  could. 

Q.  Did  she  stop  before  the  train  split?  A.  No,  sir ;  the  cars  split 
first. 

Q.  So  that  the  cars  did  not  come  into  you  again  ?  A.  No,  sir ; 
I  did  not  come  to  a  dead  stop.  1  could  have  stopped  very  easily, 
but  I  happened  to  think  that  we  two,  me  and  the  fireman,  couldn't 
do  much  ourselves ;  and  I  knew  there  was  help  on  the  train 
at  Forest  Hills  who  were  going  clown  to  Dedham  to  work  on  the 
bridge.     I  thought  of  all  those  things  quicker  than  I  can  tell  it  here. 

Q.  So  you  put  on  steam  and  went  down  to  Forest  Hills?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  quick  as  I  could. 

"Q.  What  did  you  do  then?  A.  I  blew  the  whistle  all  the  way, 
with  my  body  hanging  out  of  the  window ;  and  I  saw  people  com- 
ing out  of  doors,  and  we  kept  pointing  up  the  track,  and  they 
ran  out  of  their  houses ;  and  before  I  got  down  to  Forest  Hills  I 
saw  a  good  many  going  up  that  way,  and  before  I  got  to  the  station 
I  saw  Mr.  Worley  and  hollered  to  him  that  the  train  had  gone 
through  the  bridge,  and  to  throw  the  switch  to  have  Prince's  train 
run  up  ;  and  I  run  down  opposite  to  Prince's  train  that  was  coming 
on  the  outward  track,  and  hollered  to  him  what  was  the  matter,  and 
he  started  and  went  up  there  as  quick  as  he  could.  Then  I  walked 
back  and  hollered  to  the  station  agent  and  told  him  to  telephone  for 
doctors  and  ambulances.  Then  after  Prince  had  gone  up  with  his 
train  I  followed  up  with  my  engine. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  you  got  to  Forest  Hills  before  you  be- 
gan to  go  back  to  the  scene  of  the  accident?  A.  I  don't  think  I  was 
down  there  three  minutes. 

Q.  Then  you  went  back  to  the  bridge?  A.  Then  I  went  back  to 
the  bridge,  following  Mr.  Prince  up  with  his  train. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then?  A.  Well,  I  undertook  to  take  hold 
and  help  ;  but  I  didn't  do  much. 


APPENDIX.  45 

Q.    What  is  the  reason  you  didn't  do  much?     A.    My  courage  was 

gone. 

Q.  Didn't  have  any  strength?  A.  No,  sir;  I  didn't  fool  as  though 
I  could  do  anything. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  up  there?  A.  Well,  I  saw  those  three  cars 
that  stood  on  the  embankment.  The  forward  track  of  the  Brst 
stood  there,  but  the  others  had  no  trucks  under  them.  I  saw  one 
pair  of  trucks  lying  on  the  north  side  of  the  track.  The  front 
trucks  were  under  the  forward  end  of  the  front  car,  but  the  hind 
trucks  were  gone. 

Q.  You  think  they  were  not  up  on  the  embankment?  A.  All  I 
saw  was  this  one  pair  of  trucks  that  lay,  as  I  said,  ou  the  north 
side  of  the  track. 

Q.  The  forward  trucks  were  on  the  north  side  of  the  tracks? 
A.  The  forward  trucks  were  on  the  forward  car  on  the  end  of  the 
car,  but  the  rear  trucks  were  out  from  under  it.  They  were  not 
under  the  car.  I  saw  a  pair  of  trucks  on  the  embankment.  Which 
car  they  came  out  of  I  can't  tell. 

Q.  Where  were  those  trucks?  A.  They  were  down  nearly  oppo- 
site this  forward  car. 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  track?  A.  On  the  north  side  of  the 
track.     The  car,  I  should  say,  stood  on  the  south  or  southeast  side. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  second  car?  A.  T  didn't  go 
into  the  car.     I  didn't  examine  the  cars  at  all. 

Q.    Well,  about  the  trucks?     A.    There  were  no  trucks  under  it. 

Q.  No  trucks  under  the  second  car?  A.  No  trucks  under  the 
second  car. 

Q.    How  about  the  third?     A.    None  under  the  third. 

Q.  Did  you  look  around  to  see  whether  those  trucks  were  any- 
where on  the  embankment?  A.  I  don't  think  there  were  any  other 
trucks  only  this  truck  that  I  speak  of  on  the  embankment.  I  think 
that  was  the  only  pair  of  trucks,  the  pair  that  stood  under  the  ear. 
and  the  pair  I  saw  on  the  north  side. 

Q.  Did  you  look  around  carefully  to  see?  A.  I  did  not  look 
around  carefully,  but  I  was  around  there  enough  so  that  if  they  had 
been  there  I  should  have  noticed  them,  I  think. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  direction  of  the  road  there,  Mr. 
Folsom?     Is  it  south,  southwest,  or  what? 

Mr.  Folsom.  I  should  think  it  was  about  southwest.  I  know  as 
you  stand  on  the  hill  just  at  the  right  you  face  the  east,  the  rising 
sun,  which  is  about  southeast.     I  can  furnish  you  that  information. 

The  Chairman.     You  can  bring  the  location  of  the  road  here. 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  is  usual  in  speaking  of  the  main  load  to  .-: 
the  west  and  east  side  and  the   north  and  south  directions,  ami  the 


46  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

direction  of  the  branch  differs  so  little  from  the  main  road  that  I 
think  it  would  be  convenient  if  we  adopted  that  designation.  That 
is,  speak  of  north  and  south  as  the  direction,  and  the  sides  as 
east  and  west.  The  right  side  coming  in  would  be  the  east  side  and 
the  other  the  west. 

Q.  The  third  car  had  been  thrown  to  the  east  of  the  track? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  about  the  second  car?  A.  I  should  say  that  stood  up 
pretty  near  straight.     I  should  say  the  same  of  the  third. 

Q.   PreUy  nearly  on  the  line  of  the  track  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     But  off  of  the  iron  ?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    No  trucks  under  it?     A.    No  trucks  under  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  those  cars?  How  much  smashed 
were  they?  A.  I  did  not  look  them  over  at  all ;  I  went  right  down 
the  bank.  I  made  no  examination  of  them,  but  I  should  say  from 
walking  along  by  them,  that  the  third  car  was  more  demolished  than 
the  first  or  second  was,  by  the  general  appearance  of  it. 

Q.   Did  you  examine  them  afterwards  at  all?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  down  the  bank  on  which  side  ?  A.  I  went  down  on 
the  west  side  as  you  call  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  there?  A.  Wiry,  I  saw  them  all  piled  up. 
I  was  not  down  there  but  a  little  while  ;  I  felt  so,  I  came  back.  I 
went  down  there  twice,  but  I  did  not  stop  but  a  few  minutes  either 
time.  I  came  back  and  found  one  of  our  conductors  who  was  pretty 
badly  hurt  and  I  took  care  of  him. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  the  position  of  the  cars  as  they  laid  in  the 
street?  A.  No,  I  couldn't.  I  think  the  brakemen  and  conductors 
could  do  that  a  great  deal  better  than  I  could. 

Q.    Did  }'ou  take  out  any  dead  bodies?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.   Or  assist  anybody  in  doing  so  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  the  conductor  whom  you  helped  ?  A.  Mr.  Drake.  I 
got  him  on  to  the  bank  and  got  him  into  Mr.  Prince's  train. 

Q.     What  car  was  he  in?     A.    I  don't  know,  I  am  sure. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  him?  A.  I  first  saw  him  up  on  the  bank 
when  I  first  got  up  there  from  Forest  Hills.  When  I  backed  up  there 
with  my  engine  he  was  there  sitting  down  on  a  sleeper  ;  and  somebody, 
I  don't  know  who  it  was,  helped  him  into  the  car.  A  little  boy  came 
and  told  me  he  was  dying,  and  wanted  me  to  run  down  for  a  doctor 
for  him  ;  so  I  went  in  and  stayed  with  him. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  around  there?  A.  I  left  there  about 
nine  o'clock,  and  brought  in  a  train  with  some  of  the  wounded. 

Q.  Now,  to  return  to  the  original  crossing  of  the  bridge.  Did 
you  notice  the  dropping  of  the  bridge  before  the  engine  struck  the 
embankment?     A.    No,  sir;  I    didn't  notice  anything  whatever.     I 


APPENDIX.  17 

felt  no  drop,  nor  no  swing.     The  first  thing  I  felt  was  when  b! 
on  the  abutment  this  way,  I  noticed,  just  as   I   told  you.  that  the 
forward  end  came  up,  and  the  next  thing  was,  there  was  a  strike  or 
something. 

Q.  About  how  much  should  you  think  the  bridge  had  dropped 
away  at  that  time?     A.    I  can't  say. 

Q.  Six  inches  or  a  foot?  A.  I  don't  know  as  it  had  dropped  away 
any.     I  don't  know  anything  about  it,  any  more  than  you  do. 

Q.  You  say  the  front  end  of  the  engine  came  up?  A.  I  felt  it 
rise  up  and  then  I  felt  a  shock. 

Q.  How  much  do  you  think  that  rise  was?  A.  I  noticed  it.  and 
the  next  instant  this  shock  came. 

Q.  Can  you  give  any  idea  about  how  much  of  a  rise  that  was? 
A.   No,  sir  ;  no  idea  at  all. 

Q.  Should  you  think  it  was  two  or  three  inches?  A.  I  could  not 
say.     It  was  not  six  feet,  of  course,  but  it  was  enough  so  I  felt  it. 

Q.  Should  you  think  it  was  a  foot?  A.  I  should  not  say  it  was 
as  much  as  that,  but  I  can't  say  how  many  inches  ;  whether  it  was  an 
inch,  or  two,  three  or  four  inches,  but  I  felt  a  shock.  I  don't  know 
how  much  of  a  rise  it  would  take  to  give  me  such  a  shock,  or  how 
many  inches  of  drop  it  would  take  to  give  me  such  a  shock.  I  don't 
know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  drop  was  more  than  an  inch?  A.  I  could 
not  say  ;  I  don't  know  how  much  it  dropped . 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  bridge  was  absolutely  broken  through  at 
that  time?     A.    I  don't  know  that. 

Q.    Did  you  discover  any  more  drop  on  the  one  side  than  on  the 
other  side?     A.    I  think  the  blow  was  the  hardest  on  the  east  - 
the  engine  on  the  track. 

Q.   That  is,  on  your  right?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  on  the  right  coming  in. 

Q.  That  was  the  side  you  were  sitting  on?  A.  Yes.  sir ;  1  noticed 
that. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  your  engine  canted  down?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  not  that  I  noticed. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  did  not  notice  any  canting  down, 
but  you  think  the  blow  was  the  hardest  on  the  east  side?  A.  I  think 
it  was. 

Q.    In   going  over  that   bridge  previously,  hail   you  ever  I 
any  jar  at  that  point?     A.    No,  sir;  the  bridge  rode  as  solid  as  a 
rock;  I  never  felt  anything  of  a  swing  there.     The  bridgi 

Q.  Did  you  ever  find  any  jar  just  as  yon  Left  the  bridge?  A.  \... 
sir;  no  jar  nor  any  swing;  I  haven't  all  winter  long,  nor  I  never  have. 
I  have  called  it  an  extra  good  riding  bridge,  Btifl  and  stent. 

Q.     (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)      You  have  never  had    any   doubt- 


48  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

that  bridge  in  your  own  mind?  A.  I  have  never  been  afraid  of  it. 
Of  course  it  is  a  bridge,  and  we  are  all  a  little  more  shy  of  a  bridge 
than  we  are  of  the  solid  ground  ;  but  I  always  thought  that  bridge 
was  perfectly  safe. 

Q.  Didn't  you  ever  have  any  fear  on  account  of  its  being  on  a 
skew?     A.    I  don't  like  to  strike  a  bridge  on  a  skew. 

Q.  Little  rather  have  it  straight  ahead,  hadn't  you?  A.  Of 
course. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Why  was  that  a  bridge  that  you  did  not 
exactly  like  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  He  did  not  say  that ;  he  said  he  did  not  like  a 
bridge  generally  as  well  as  hard  ground. 

The  Chairman.  I  know ;  but  I  understand  the  position  of  the 
bridge  and  the  way  it  crossed  the  street  was  such  that  it  was  some- 
what peculiar,  was  it  not?  A.  The  idea  is,  I  did  not  strike  the  bridge 
square. 

Q.    You  struck  it  diagonally,  did  you?     A.    That  is  it. 

Q.  Is  that  a  more  difficult  bridge  to  build  than  a  common  bridge  ? 
A.    I  am  not  a  bridge  builder ;  I  can't  tell  whether  it  is  or  not. 

Q.  Can  it  be  made  as  strong  as  a  straight  bridge?  A.  I  don't 
know  why  that  could  not  be  built  as  strong  where  the  skew  is  as 
slight  as  it  is  there,  the  bridge  part  of  it,  as  any  other. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  suspicion  in  regard  to  that  bridge  as 
not  being  built  strong  enough  for  such  a  position?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
always  considered  the  bridge  safe,  as  far  as  I  know.  In  fact,  I  am  no 
judge  of  bridges.  I  alwa}-s  calculated  that  our  officials  know  when  a 
bridge  is  a  safe  one  ;  I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  reported  in  any  way  in  regard  to  the  bridge  ? 
A.    No,  sir ;  never. 

Q.  How  long  ago  should  you  say  that  it  was  last  materially  repaired  ? 
A.  I  could  not  say.  I  ain't  very  good  on  dates.  I  think  the  bridge 
has  been  there  about  ten  years,  as  near  as  I  can  tell.  I  know  they 
have  painted  it  and  have  done  work  on  it,  but  I  don't  know  how  long 
ago  it  was. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  nicknames  for  the  bridge?  A.  The 
old  wooden  bridge,  after  the  company  tinned  it  over,  people  outside  of 
the  railroad,  I  think,  used  to  call  it  the  "  tin  bridge"  ;  but  the  em- 
ployees never  called  it  anything  but  the  "  Bussey  Bridge."  They 
tinned  the  old  wooden  bridge  over  to  save  it  from  catching  fire,  and 
then  it  got  the  name  of  the  "  tin  bridge." 

Q.  Where  was  the  tin  put ;  on  the  sides  ?  A.  No  ;  on  top  of  the 
bridge. 

Q.  That  was  a  wooden  bridge,  wasn't  it?  A.  I  think  that  was  a 
wooden  bridge. 


APPENDIX.  49 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Hall  truss,  wasn't  it?  A.I  think  it  was 
an  old  Hall  truss. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)      Was  any  portion  of  that  old  bridg 
remaining  until  yesterday  morning?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  completely  rebuilt  eight  or  ten  years  ago?  A.  The 
wooden  bridge  was  taken  away  and  this  iron  bridge  put  on. 

Q.  The  wooden  bridge  was  changed  to  an  iron  bridge,  was  it,  at 
that  time?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  go  ou  to  the  track  on  the  Dedliam  side  of  the 
after  the  accident?     A.    No,  sir ;  I  didn't. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  cars  in  the  street  at  all?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
didn't. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  evidences  of  fire  there  at  all?  A.  No.  sir :  I 
didn't. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     I  want  to  ask  you  one  question  or  have 
you  emphasize  an  answer  you  gave  just  now.     I  understood  you  to 
say  that  you  had  never  had  the  slightest  doubt  or  fear  about  the 
of  that  bridge.     That  is  so,  is  it?     A.    Yes,  sir ;  tliat  is  what  I  say. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Stevens.)     Did  you  ever  hear  any  of  the  puss 
say  that  they  were  afraid  of  it?     A.    Not  until  after  the  accident. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Williams.)     What    was    the    name  of  your   ei 
A.    "  Torrey." 

Q.    How  old  an  engine  is  that?     A.    I  can't  tell  you  that. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  it  to  be  on  the  road?  A.  I  couldn't 
tell  you  that. 

Q.  It  has  been  there  ever  since  you  have  been  on  the  road? 
A.    Oh,  no  ;  it  is  a  new  engine,  comparatively. 

Q.    About  how  old?     A.    She  might  be  three  or  four  years  old. 

Mr.  Potnam.  If  you  only  want  to  know,  all  those  statistics  can  be 
had  with  absolute  accuracy  from  the  people  who  have  them  in  charge, 
so  that  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  spend  lime  on  that  subject. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  had  that  engine  to  run?  A.  1  took  that 
engine  just  about  a  year  ago. 

Q.    Was  she  new  then?     A.    No,  sir,  she  wasn't  new. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  heavy  an  engine  it  is?  A.  No;  I  don't 
know  the  weight  of  her. 

Q.    Can  you   tell  us  approximately  the  weight   of  it?     A.     N 
I  know   she   weighs   more   than  twenty  tons,  but   I   don't   know  what 
she  would  weigh. 

Q.  How  diil  it  compare  with  the  engine  that  you  had  for  the  train 
before  that?     A.    She  is  heavier,  I  should  say. 

Q.    And  larger?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  much  longer?     A.    Well.  Bhe  isn't  any  longer. 
Q.    Can  you  tell  us  how  much  heavier?     A.    No,  I  can't. 


50  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Mr.  Putnam.  You  can  have  the  exact  weight  of  every  engine  on 
the  road  if  you  will  ask  for  it.  I  don't  care,  only  1  thought  it  was 
spending  time  unnecessarily. 

Q.  Are  there  any  freight  trains  run  over  tbat  track?  A.  No,  sir, 
I  think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  it  is  since  freight  trains  have  been  run 
over  the  track?  A.  Oh,  it  is  a  great  many  years  since  freight  trains 
have  run  there. 

Q.  How  far  across  the  bridge  had  your  train  got  before  you 
noticed  any  unusual  motion?  A.  Just  as  I  struck  on  this  edge  of  the 
abutment  1  first  noticed  it,  as  I  gave  my  testimony  here. 

Q.  How  far  should  you  say  your  engine  had  got  on  to  the  abut- 
ment before  you  felt  any  motion?  A.  It  was  right  on  the  abutment, 
1  suuuld  say. 

Q  Had  it  got  entirely  on  the  abutment?  A.  No  ;  I  should  say  it 
waa  about  where  the  abutment  begins. 

Q.  Should  you  say  the  middle  of  the  engine  was  on  the  edge  of 
the  abutment?  A.  The  shock  came  on  the  wheel,  of  course,  or  the 
truck,  as  I  went  along.  Took  the  truck  first  and  then  the  driving- 
wheels. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  a  shock.  Was  that  a  pitch  backward  or 
a  pitch  forward?  A.  Well,  it  was  like  this  (striking  his  hands). 
That  is  the  only  way  I  can  represent  it. 

Q.  A  sensation  as  of  something  which  was  striking  the  ends  of 
your  engine ?     A.    As  though  the  wheels  struck  something. 

Q.  You  also  spoke  of  the  front  of  your  engine  rising.  Can  you 
distinguish  between  the  rising  of  the  front  and  the  falling  of  the  back 
of  the  engine?  A.  As  I  was  looking  out  I  saw  the  front  bob  up  a 
very  little. 

<^.  Was  there  any  sensation  of  sinking  where  ycu  were  in  the  box? 
A.    Not  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  motion  of  the  tender  at  that  time?  A.  No, 
sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  1  suppose  you  were  busy  reversing  your  engine  after  you 
noticed  the  motion?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  first  looked  back  after  giving  your  attention  to  your 
engine,  how  far  had  the  train  got  on  the  abutment?  A.  I  looked 
back  just  as  I  noticed  this  shock  on  my  drivers  ;  turned  my  head  back, 
and  the  car  then  was  off  the  track,  and  I  knew  I  was  broke  away  be- 
cause I  was  running  away  from  the  car.  I  was  running  faster.  The 
car  had  run  off  the  trnck,  and  of  course  I  was  running  faster. 

Q.  The  first  car  was  otf  the  track?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  first  car  was 
off  the  track. 

Q.   Was  that  still  on  the  bridge  or  was  it  up  on  the  embankment? 


APPENDIX.  1 

A.    When  I  first  saw  it  the  end   part  of  it  must  have  been 
bridge. 

Q.  How  ranch  of  the  car  should  you  suppose  bad  got  on  the  abot- 
ment  when  yon  noticed  it  running  off  the  track?  A.  Well,  it  was 
just  about  coming  to  the  abutment,  I  should  say. 

Q.  Was  the  car  in  a  horizontal  position?  A.  After  it  left  th< 
it  sheered  over  —  lay  right  over  like  that  (illustrating).  I  I 
it  was  going  to  tip  over,  but  it  didn't ;  it  righted  up. 

Q.  Was  the  front  end  of  the  car  higher  than  the  back?  A.  Yes, 
there  was  no  truck  under  the  hind  part  of  the  car. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  the  front  end  of  the  car  was  elevated,  pointed 
upwards?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  about  the  second  car,  could  you  see  that?  A.  Yes.  I  aaw 
the  second  car,  but  I  can't  tell  whether  the  trucks  were  on  it  when  it 
left  the  bridge  or  not.     I  could  not  see  it  distinctly  enough.     I  I 

see  the  first  car  plain  ;  but  after  I  got  back  there  I  see  the  trucks  were 
out  from  underneath  the  car. 

Q.  When  your  engine  broke  away  from  the  first  car  how  far  should 
you  say  you  had  got  on  the  embankment  from  the  abutment? 
A.  Why,  the  whole  engine  and  tender  were  on  the  embankment  when 
she  broke. 

Q.  Should  you  say  the  break  occurred  about  the  time  the  front  of 
the  first  car  got  on  the  embankment?  A.  That  is  what  I  should  Bay  ; 
yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  What  is  your  theory  in  regard  to  this 
accident?  I  should  like  to  have  you  tell  what  you  think  about  it. 
Whether  you  think  an  axle  broke,  a  wheel  broke  or  the  bridge  broke? 
A.  I  could  not  say  for  ray  life  what  caused  the  accident,  —  whether 
it  was  a  broken  journal,  a  broken  wheel  or  a  broken  rail.  Ail  1  know 
is  what  I  have  told  you  here.  I  felt  that  jar,  and  that  is  all  I  know 
about  it.     What  caused  it  1  have  no  more  idea  than  you  have. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  It  was  not  caused  by  a  broken  journal 
on  the  engine?     A.   The  engine  was  all  sound,  as  far  as  1  ki. 

Q.  There  was  some  defect  in  the  bridge,  was  there  not,  at  the 
time  when  you  left  the  bridge  for  the  abutment?  A.  I  could  not 
swear  that  there  was  a  defect  in  the  bridge  ;  all  I  can  swear  t<>  is  that 
I  felt  that  jar  there. 

Q.    Did  you  think  it  was  a  jar  caused  by  the  train  in  the 
did  you  think  it  was  a  jar  caused  by  a  Bottling  of  the  bridge?     A.    It 
seemed  to  me  like  the  shock  when  we  back  oil  from  the  tabh 
into  the  engine  house.     It  seemed  just  the  same  kind  of  Shock  as  that, 
when  one  rail  is  a  little  higher  than  the  other,  as  you  go  off  of  the 
turn-table.     It  seemed  to  me  just  like  that. 


52  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  You  think  that  the  bridge  had  settled,  then,  a  little?  A.  I 
don't  know. 

Q.  That  is  what  it  seemed  like?  A.  It  seemed  so;  but  then,  of 
course,  I  would  not  give  my  testimony  that  it  had,  because  I  don't 
know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  feel  that  sort  of  a  jar  from  any  breaking  of  a 
wheel  or  anything  on  the  train  behind  you  ?  A.  I  have  felt  that  sort 
of  a  jar  when  I  have  had  a  broken  rail ;  the  same  thing  exactly. 

Q.  You  mean  when  a  rail  broke  under  your  engine  ?  A.  I  mean 
when  somebody  else  had  broken  it  and  I  run  along  and  run  into  it. 

Q.    When  your  engine  went  on  to  a  broken  rail?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  not  when  the  cars  behind  you  broke  a  rail ;  it  was  only 
when  your  engine  went  over  a  broken  rail  that  you  felt  that  sort  of  a 
jar?     A.   When  the  engine  went  over  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pdtnam.)  Did  you  ever  have  a  car  behind  you  break 
a  truck  so  as  to  have  it  strike  at  a  point  where  the  track  was  open, 
as  on  this  bridge,  before  this  time?  A.  I  don't  understand  you,  Mr. 
Putnam. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  a  car  on  your  train  break  a  truck  or  a  jour- 
nal so  that  the  truck  or  some  part  of  the  truck  dropped  and  caught  on 
the  ties?  A.  I  never  was  running  a  train  when  I  broke  a  journal  or 
a  wheel  on  a  car. 

Q.    Or  truck?     A.   Or  truck,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Then  how  that  would  affect  that  engine  30U  don't  know? 
A.   No. 

Q.  When  you  went  back  to  the  bridge  after  the  accident,  you  sa}- 
3rou  saw  the  first  car  on  the  east  side  of  the  track  upon  its  forward 
truck,  with  the  rear  truck  gone?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  saw  a  truck  which  you  supposed  to  be  its  rear  truck 
on  the  west  side  of  the  track?  A.  I  saw  a  truck  on  the  west  side  of 
the  track,  but  I  don't  know  which  car  it  came  from. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  abutment  was  that  car,  according  to  your 
best  judgment?  A.  They  didn't  run  but  just  a  very  little  more  than 
their  length. 

Q.  That  is,  the  length  of  the  three  cars  ?  A.  Yes  ;  but  very  little 
more.     I  noticed  that. 

Q.  That  would  make  the  rear  of  the  first  car  about  two  car  lengths 
from  the  abutment?  A.  Yes,  sir.  They  didn't  run  but  a  little  more 
than  their  length. 

Q.  Where  were  the  second  and  third  cars  lying?  A.  They  were 
on  the  embankment,  behind  the  first  car. 

Q.  On  the  east  or  west  side  of  the  track?  A.  They  stood  about 
middle  way,  I  should  say. 


APPENDIX.  53 

Q.   The\-  stood   about  in  the  centre  of  the  track?     A.    Y< 
The}'  were  not  entirely  off  the  track  ;   not  off  one  Bide. 

Q.   But  they  were  off  their  tracks?     A.   They  were  off  their  ti 

Q.  Did  you  look  to  see  where  their  trucks  were,  <•!•  give  any  atten- 
tion to  the  question  where  their  trucks  were?     A.    No.  -ir,  I  didn't. 

Q.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  now  whether  their  trucks  were  or  were 
not  on  the  embankment?  A.  I  don't  think  they  were.  All  I  see 
was  one  pair  of  trucks. 

Q.    You  did  not  observe  any  other  trucks  there?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  looking  for  trucks,  were  you?  A.  No  :  I  wasn't 
looking  for  trucks. 

Q.    You  were  on  your  way  to  go  down  the  hank  into  the 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   You  went  down  the  bank  close  up  to  the  abutment  on  tl: 
side,  I  take  it,  just  where  the  path  is  now?     A.    Yes,  sir,  where  the 
path  is  now. 

Q.  You  have  said  something  about  rules  for  speed  upon  bridges  — 
have  you  ever  had  a  rule  for  speed  on  this  particular  bridge?  A.  I 
think  we  have. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  shape  of  a  rule  for  this  particular  bridge,  or  was 
it  in  the  shape  of  a  general  rule  for  all  bridges,  or  was  it  in  the  shape 
of  a  rule  for  certain  specific  bridges  of  which  this  was  one?  A.  I 
think  the  rule  was  a  specific  rule.  That  is,  after  they  had  been  op 
and  tested  it,  I  think  there  was  an  order  came  out  as  to  this  particu- 
lar bridge.  But  there  is  a  rule  as  to  running  over  all  bridges  Blow. 
That  is  a  rule  that  has  been  in  force  a  long  time  back,  to  run  over  all 
bridges  slow,  with  care  and  caution,  as  well  as  any  bad  places  there 
might  be. 

Q.  According  to  your  memory,  was  the  rale  you  speak  of  made 
after  the  renewal  of  this  bridge  ten  years  ago  or  thereabouts,  or  was 
it  made  during  the  existence  of  the  old  wooden  bridge?  A.  I  could 
not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  "Were  you  in  the  habit  of  slowing  as  you  went  on  to  the  bridge 
without  regard  to  the  rate  at  which  you  were  going  before  you  reached 
the  bridge?  A.  That  was  a  place  where  I  always  invariably  —  I 
have  one  way  of  doing  everything  — that  was  a  place  where  I  always 
invariably  run  slow. 

Q.   You  mean  on  the  bridge  or  as  you  approached  it  at  either  end? 
A.   If  I  was  going  too  fast  I  shut  off  and  put  on  the  air-brake  ;  it*  not, 
I  perhaps  would  shut  off.     If  I  whs  overloaded,  perhaps  I  would  work 
steam  right  over  the  bridge.     I  would  run  twelve  or  Bfteen  D 
hour  as  near  as  I  could,  according  to  my  judgment. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  alter  your  rate  of  Bpeed  over  this  bridge, 
unless  you  were  going  too  fast  when  you  came  there?     A.    That  is  it. 


54  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  went  over  on  this  occasion  under 
steam?     A.    I  was  working  steam. 

Q.  And  you  continued  to  work  steam  ?  A.  I  continued  to  work 
steam. 

Q.  You  felt,  as  I  understand  3'ou,  a  rise  in  the  forward  part  of  the 
locomotive  and  tben  a  more  distinct  bump  when  the  drivers,  as  j'ou 
thought,  reached  the  abutment,  and  then  you  instantly  turned,  did 
you?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  saw  the  first  car  off  the  track  and  detached  from  the  en- 
gine? A.  Yes,  sir;  the  coupling  was  broke  and  I  was  running 
away  from  her. 

Q.  That  is,  when  you  first  looked  round  you  were  free  of  the  train 
and  the  first  car  was  off  the  track,  and  you  looked  round  the  moment 
you  felt  this  rise,  or  this  jar  that  you  speak  of?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  second  and  third  cars  go  off  the  bridge?  A. 
I  see  the  second  car,  but  the  third  car  I  couldn't  see. 

Q.  Could  you  see  when  the  second  car  left  the  bridge  whether  it 
was  running  on  the  rails  or  not?  A.  I  see  that  was  off  the  track. 
As  quick  as  it  got  off  the  bridge  I  see  that  it  was  on  the  ground.  As 
soon  as  it  struck  the  ground  I  see  it  was  on  the  ground,  the  same  as 
the  first  one  was. 

Q.   You  mean  off  the  rails?     A.   Off  the  rails. 

Q.    Not  off  its  trucks,  however?     A.    I  can't  say  about  that. 

Q.  And  the  third  car  you  could  not  see  at  all?  A.  Did  not  see 
at  all. 

Q.  And  when  you  got  back  there,  how  far  north  of  the  abutment 
was  the  third  car?  By  north,  I  mean  towards  Forest  Hills.  A. 
Well,  the  three  cars  laid  a  little  more  than  the  length  of  them  this 
way  from  the  abutment. 

Q.  Yes  ;  but  do  you  mean  that  the  rear  end  of  the  third  car  was  a 
car  length  from  the  abutment?  A.  I  should  not  say  it  was  quite  a 
car  length. 

Q.  It  was  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  car  length  from  the 
abutment,  was  it  ?  A.  It  was  a  little  over  three  cars'  length  from  the 
abutment  that  the  whole  three  cars  stood. 

Q.    Were  the  three  cars  coupled  together?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  They  had  been  shaken  apart,  had  they?  A.  I  think  the  for- 
ward one  was  apart,  sure,  but  the  other  two  I  won't  sa}T  about. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  noticing  any  difference  in  their  condition  as 
to  being  smashed  up,  —  whether  one  was  more  smashed  than  the 
others?  A.  I  thought  the  third  car  was  more  demoralized  than  the 
other  two  as  I  walked  along  by. 

Q.  And  the  rear  of  the  third  car  was  somewhat  less  than  a  car 
length  from  the  abutment?     A.    I  should  say  so. 


APPENDIX. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  that  third  car  was  an  old  car  01  a 
new  car?     A.   I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Testimony  of  John  Tbipp. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  "Were  you  brakeman  on  this  trip? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  employ  of  the  road?  A.  Since 
last  October. 

Q.    What  is  your  residence?      A.    Dedham. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  have  you  been  since  last  October?  A.  Pas 
senger  brakeman. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  before  that?  A.  I  was  horse-car  con- 
ductor. 

Q.    Ever  been  on  the  railroad  before?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    What  was  your  position  on  this  train?     A.    Head  brakeman. 

Q.  Which  cars  did  you  take  care  of?  A.  The  Grst  two  forward 
cars. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  of  the  accident?  A.  I  was  in 
the  rear  end  of  the  first  car. 

Q.    Inside  of  the  car?     A.    Inside  of  the  car. 

Q.  What  was  your  experience?  A.  Well,  I  was  seated  down  in 
the  seat,  the  first  seat  right  side  of  the  door,  on  the  left. 

Q.  That  is,  the  h  ft  passing  forward?  A.  Facing  the  engine. 
And  the  first  thing  I  knew  the  car  seemed  to  go  down  on  to  the 
ground,  the  rear  trucks  of  the  car  came  out  from  under  it.  and  caused 
it  to  stop.  I  got  out  of  the  car  and  looked  round,  and  I  see  that  an 
accident  had  happened,  and  I  wrent  into  the  two  cars  that  were  behind 
me. 

Q.  You  say  the  car  in  which  you  were  came  down  en  to  the 
ground?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  thrown  out  of  your  seat?  A.  I  was  thrown  out  of 
my  seat,  towards  the  door,  into  the  alley. 

Q.  Thrown  forward  or  back?  A.  Well,  I  wasn't  thrown  either 
way,  I  should  say;  the  trucks  came  out  from  under  the  rear  end  of 
the  car,  this  way.  and  the  car  swayed  down  that  way,  and  1  BWayed 
off  of  the  seat  on  to  the  floor. 

Q.    Were  the  front  trucks  also  off?     A.    No.  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  car  tipped  up  in  front?  A.  It  was  a  little  higher  in 
front  on  account  of  the  trucks  being  there. 

Q.    The  fi out  trucks  were  on?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Did  the  floor  of  the  car  break  in  any  way?     A.    No.  sir. 

Q.  How  soon  did  the  car  stop?  A.  Well,  we  hadn't  -one  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  car  length  when  we  stopped  after  the  car  struck 
the  ground  ;  that  is,  I  should  judge  so. 


56  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Was  there  any  swaying  of  the  car  before  it  struck  the  ground? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  notice  any. 

Q.  How  far  was  the  car  from  the  bridge  when  it  stopped?  A.  It 
was  a  little  over  three  car  lengths  ;  that  is,  the  first  car  was. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  feel  the  jar?  A.  I  felt  it  when  the  rear 
truck  came  from  under  the  rear  end  of  the  car. 

Q.  When  do  you  think  that  was,  with  reference  to  the  bridge,  — 
before  or  after  you  left  the  bridge?     A.    After  we  left  the  bridge. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  trucks  were  on  the  car  after  you  left  the 
bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   Both  trucks?     A.    Both  trucks. 

Q.  And  was  the  car  then  on  the  track  when  it  left  the  bridge  ? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  any  jar  of  the  car  over  the  sleepers  before  the 
truck  was  torn  out  from  underneath  the  car?  A.  I  didn't  notice 
any ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  car  ran  smoothly  on  the  rails  after  it  left 
the  bridge  until  it  came  within  a  quarter  of  a  car  length  of  the  place 
where  it  stopped?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  front  truck  on  the  track  when  you  got  out  of  the  car? 
A.    No.  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  do  after  you  got  out  of  the  car?  A.  I 
looked  around  and  saw  two  other  cars  behind  me.  I  went  right 
through  both  cars  ;  there  was  nobody  in  them.  I  looked  down  and 
saw  the  wreck,  saw  that  the  bridge  had  gone  through.  I  went  down 
the  embankment,  and  helped  take  out  those  that  were  killed  and 
injured. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  two  cars  behind  you?  A.  They 
were  pretty  well  wrecked,  — the  ends  of  them. 

Q.  Were  they  on  the  track  or  not?  A.  Very  nearby.  They  were 
parallel  with  the  track. 

Q.    Were  they  on  their  trucks?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Any  of  the  trucks  under  them?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  condition  of  the  ends  of  either  of  those 
cars?     A.    Nothing  more  than  to  take  a  look  at  them  ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  Describe  the  general  condition  of  the  end  of  those  cars?  A.  I 
should  judge  that  the  ends  of  them  were  sort  of  chewed  off,  smashed  ; 
the  ends  were  wrecked. 

Q.    Pulled  apart  and  crushed  in?     A.    I  could  not  say  that. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  down  on  the  street?  I  found  the  cars  all  in 
a  heap  there  ;  some  people  were  trying  to  get  out ;  some  did  get  out 
of  themselves  ;  and  those  that  could  not  get  out  we  took  out. 

Q.  How  many  cars  were  there  on  the  train?  A.  There  were  nine 
cars. 


APPENDIX.  57 

Q.   How  many  cars  were  there  on  the  track  on  the  embankment? 

A.   Three  cars. 

Q.    What  was  the  position  of  the  six  cars  in  the  Btreel  ?     A.    Well, 
they  were  all  piled  up  there  in  a  heap. 

Q.  Can  yon  describe  any  more  definitely  1k>w  they  were  arranged? 
A.   The  only  two  cars  that  I  could  tell  were  S2  an. I  combination  1. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  combination  1  ?  A.  It  laid  nearly 
parallel  with  the  road,  upside  down. 

Q.    In  the  road,  or  at  the  side  of  the  road?     A.    Just  at  t] 
of  the  abutment. 

<v>.    Upside  down?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  go  to  that  car  to  help  anybody  out  of  it?     A.    ' 
there,  but  there  was  nobody  in  there. 

Q.  How  soon  did  you  get  there?  A.  Probably  ten  minutes  after- 
wards. 

Q.  Then  what  was  the  condition  of  the  other  car  that  you  say  you 
know  about,  —  82,  —  where  was  that  situated?  A.  That  was  next 
to  the  combination. 

Q.  And  how  was  that  placed?  A.  That  was  right  side  up,  on  top 
of  the  others. 

Q.    What  cars  were  under  it?     A.    There  were  ">4,  87,  so  and  81. 

Q.  Eighty-two  was  on  top  of  54  ?  A.  It  was  not  on  topofthoec 
cars,  but  that  was  the  only  car  that  was  right  side  up. 

Q.  Was  it  on  top  of  any  other  car?  A.  I  think  it  was  on  top  of 
80  and  81. 

Q.  Eighty-two  was  what  car  in  the  train?  A.  It  was  close  to  the 
combination,  next  to  the  last  car. 

Q.    Where  were  80  and  81  ?     They  followed. 

Q.  Followed  it  or  preceded  it?  A.  They  were  just  ahead  of  it,  — 
the  next  two  cars  ahead  of  it. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  cars  in  the  train  ;  how  were  they?  There 
are  four  cars,  —  the  combination,  82,  «<>  and  81.  Now.  what  were 
the  others?     A.    There  were  82,  81  and  80. 

Q.  That  is  three  ;  and  then  the  combination  makes  four?  A.  Y  -. 
sir. 

',».  Now.  there  were  two  other  cars?  A.  Eighty-seven  and  fifty- 
four. 

Q.  How  were  they  situated  in  the  street,  —  do  you  remember? 
A.    They  were  down  there,  all  smashed  up. 

Q.     One   on    top  of  the   other?      A.    They  looked   to   me      - 

they  were  jammed  in  there,  —  smashed  in;  I  could  not  Bay  whl 

on  top  or  which  was  underneath. 
Q.   What   did  you  do  down  there?    A.   I  helped    take   out  the 

wounded  and  dead. 


58  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Out  of  which  cars?  A.  I  don't  know  which  cars  they  were. 
It  was  next  to  the  end,  towards  Forest  Hills,  where  I  helped  to  take 
them  out. 

Q.    Did  you  see  any  evidences  of  fire?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  badly  were  those  cars  broken?  A.  Some  of  them  were 
smashed  all  beyond  good,  and  there  were  some  of  them  that  were 
not  smashed  so  bad. 

Q.  Were  any  of  them  completely  broken  up,  —  did  they  retain 
the  shape  of  cars  or  not?     A.   That  I  could  not  say. 

Q.    How  many  dead  bodies  did  you  see?     A.    I  don't  know,  sir. 

Q.  About  how  many?  I  could  not  say;  there  might  be  two,  three 
or  four,  —  somewheres  around  there. 

Q.  When  did  you  think  you  first  felt  any  jar?  With  reference  to 
the  bridge,  was  it  when  the  train  was  on  the  bridge,  or  when  was  it? 
A.  I  don't  remember  feeling  any  jar  until  the  rear  trucks  came  out 
from  under  the  car  I  was  in. 

Q.  And  where  was  that?  A.  That  was  a  little  over  three  car 
lengths  from  the  bridge,  —  from  this  end  of  it ;  that  is,  when  we 
stopped. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  feel  the  jar?  A.  Well,  the  car  I  was  in 
slid  along  on  the  ground,  probably  a  quarter  of  a  car  length, 
after  the  trucks  came  from  under  it,  and  we  stopped. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  in  a  railroad  accident  before?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  then,  nothing  happened  to  your  car  until  it  got 
two  or  three  lengths  beyond  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don't  think  there  was  any  jar  in  your  car  when  it  left  the 
bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    You  feel  very  confident  that  there  was  not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  the  exact  position  of  the  bridge  ?  How  can  you 
feel  confident  that  there  was  no  jar  when  your  car  left  the  bridge? 
A.  Well,  for  the  simple  reason  that  I  noticed  nothing  more  unusual 
coming  over  there  than  I  ever  did. 

'  Q.  How  could  you  tell  exactly  where  the  bridge  was?  A.  Well,  by 
the  sound  ;  as  you  go  over  it,  there  is  a  different  sound  —  there  is  a 
sort  of  holiow  sound  when  3tou  go  over  a  bridge  —  from  what  there 
would  be  going  right  along  on  the  smooth  rail. 

Q.  What  do  3-011  suppose  it  was  threw  your  car  off  of  the  track? 
A.    Wh3r,  the  trucks  came  from  under  it. 

Q.  What  made  the  trucks  come  from  under  it?  A.  The  engine 
broke  away  from  us. 

Q.  Well,  wh3T  did  the  engine  break  awa3T  from  3*011?  A.  That  I 
could  not  say,  anything  more  than  the  rear  trucks  came  from  under 
the  car  I  was  in  ;  of  course  it  would  make  it  harder  to  pull. 


APPENDIX.  50 

Q.    Yes.     Now,  what  do  you  suppose  made  those  real  trucks  come 
away?     A.    That  I  dou't  know. 

Q.    Have  no  idea  in  regard  to  that?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.   You  think  it  was  no  fault  of  the  bridge?     A.    No, 

Q.   You  think  it  was  not  due  to  any  fault  of  the  bridge?     A.    No, 

sir. 

Q.   What  was  it  due  to?     A.    I  don't  know  that. 
Q.    (By  Mr.   Kinsley.)     lias  there  been   any   gossip  among  the 
men  about  the  weakness  of  that  bridge?     A.    None  that  I  ever  beard. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Absolutely  never  heard  any  gossip  about 
it?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.   Have  you  heard  anything  about  it  since  the  accident?    A.   Oh, 
ves,  I  have  heard  lots  of  it. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     Among  the  men?     A.   No,  the  passengers 
that  ride  on  that  branch. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Have  you  ever  felt  any  jar  coining  off 
that  bridge?     A.    No,  sir,  I  never  did. 

Q.    Did  you  on  this  occasion  feel  any  jar  coming  off  of  that  bridge  .' 
A.   No,  sir. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Williams.)     Can  you  tell  the  numbers  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  "cars?     A.   Fifty-four  and  eighty-seven. 

Q.    Fifty-four  first?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Eighty-seven  next?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   What  was  the  number  of  the  first  car?     A.    Fifty-two. 

Q.    Second?     A.    Eighteen. 

Q.   Third?     A.    Twenty-eight. 

Q.    Fourth?     A.    Fifty-four. 

Q.   Fifth?     A.    Eighty-seven. 

Q.   Sixth?     A.    Eighty. 

Q.    Seventh?     A.    Eighty-one. 

Q.    Eighth?     A.    Eighty-two. 

Q.    Ninth?     A.   No.  1  combination. 

Q.    You  are  quite  sure  that  80,  81    and  82  were  in  the  order  you 
speak  of?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Mr.  Alden,  the  conductor,  testified,  as  I  understood  nun,  the 
other  way,  — that  80  was  next  to  the  combination,  thru  came  81,then 
».t-_  „„i*«  ,^c;hvp  nbnnt  the  order?     A.    xes, 


came 

sir 


Now,  are  you  quite  positive  about  the  order? 


Q.   Did  you  help  to  make  up  the  train  at  Dednam  ?     A 
Q.    Were  there  any  other  braketnen  on  the  train  than  the  other  two 
men,  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Annis?    A.    Not  that  I  know  o£ 
Q.  You  had  charge  of  the  first  two  oars?     A.    5  es,  bit. 

Q.    How  many  cars  did   Mr.  Smith   have    charge   of?     A.    I 
charge  of  three  cars,  I  believe. 


60  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    And  Mi'.  Annis?     A.   He  had  charge  of  three  cars. 

Q.  That  would  not  make  nine.  There  were  nine  on  the  train,  were;! 
there  not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  man}-  did  Mr.  Annis  have  charge  of?  A.  He  had  charge 
of  three  cars,  — rear  brakeman. 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Smith  had  how  main-?  A.  Supposed  to  have  three 
cars. 

Q.  How  many  did  he  have  that  day?  A.  That  I  don't  know;  I 
don't  know  how  many  cars  he  had  charge  of  that  morning. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Was  there  a  baggage-master  in  the  bag-', 
gage  car?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    He  was  supposed  to  have  charge  of  that?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Was  that  Annis?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Annis  was  acting  as  baggage-master  as  well  as  brakeman? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    You  had  only  charge  of  the  two  forward  cars?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Was  that  the  regular  number  of  brakemen 
on  that  train  ?     A.   Yes,  sir  ;  I  believe  so. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  There  were  three  conductors,  were  there 
not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Monday  morning  you  had  nine  cars? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  would  you  have  ordinarily  the  balance  of  the  week? 
A.    Eight  cars. 

Q.    Have  the  same  number  of  brakemen?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (B3-  Mr.  Stevens.)  In  case  anything  should  happen,  were  the 
conductors  supposed  to  act  as  brakemen  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  the  conductors  ever  act  as  brake- 
men?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  and  how  often  have  you  known  them  to  act  as  brakemen  ? 
A.  I  couldn't  sa}r  how  often  ;  whenever  the  engineer  calls  for  assist- 
ance he  gets  it,  as  well  from  the  conductors  as  from  the  brakemen. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  I  suppose  the  hand-brakes  are  not  called 
for  very  often,  are  they?     A.    No,  sir. 

Testimony  of  Elisha  G.  Annis. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.    Dedham. 

Q.   Were  you  a  brakeman  on  this  train?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  employ  of  the  Boston  &  Provi- 
dence Railroad?     A.    About  a  year  and  a  half. 

Q.    In  what  capacity  ?     A.    Passenger  service  brakeman. 

Q.  And  on  what  trains?  A.  Mostly  on  this  train,  the  train  that  I 
was  on. 

Q.    Have  you  been  brakeman  on  the  main  line,  or  on  any  other 


APPENDIX.  6] 

line  of  the  road?    A.   Xo,  sir;  only  on    the    Dedham    branch,  the 
other  way. 

Q.    Always  on   one   or  the   other  of  the   brauchea  to    Dedham? 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    What  were  yon  doing  before  yon  were  employed  by  the  B 
&  Providence  Railroad?     A.    I  was  working  at  carpentering. 

Q.  What  were  your  duties  on  this  train?  A.  I  w:is  acting  as 
baggage-master. 

Q.  Was  that  all  of  your  duty?  A.  To  act  as  brakeman  and  to 
look  after  the  baggage  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.    You  were  also  brakeman  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    For  what  cars?     A.    No.  82  and  the  combination,  the  smoker. 

Q.    That  was  combination  No.  1?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  of  the  accident?  A.  In  the 
baggage  compartment  of  the  combination. 

(.).  Well,  what  happened  to  you?  A.  Nothing  very  serious 
happened  to  me. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Tell  us  about  it.  You  left  Dedham  at 
such  a  time,  and  }'ou  came  down  to  this  place,  and  then  what? 
A.  The  first  thing  I  felt  was  a  shock.  I  looked  out  of  the  door,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  crash  came,  and  I  saw  that  the  bridge  had  given 
way,  and  felt  that  the  car  was  fast  going  down.  I  didn't  think  of 
jumping,  but  went  inside,  or  was  inside,  and  I  laid  down  ;  hadn't 
more  than  laid  down  before  my  car  went  with  the  rest  of  them, 
paused  for  a  moment  about  half-way  down,  rolled  on  its  side,  and 
then  completely  over,  and  landed  on  its  top  in  the  street. 

Q.  You  first  felt  what  — a  jar?  A.  A  little  jar,  which  caused  me 
to  look  out  of  the  door. 

Q.  You  were  on  the  Dedham  side  of  the  bridge  at  that  time? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  other  end  when  you  felt  this  jar?  A.  The 
train  was  the  length  of  nine  cars.  When  I  looked  out,  1  saw  that  the 
bridge  had  given  way. 

Q.  How  many  cars  were  ahead  of  you  then?  A.  Well,  there  were 
three  cars  that  were  over  the  bridge  ;  so  I  suppose  there  were  about  sis 
cars  ahead  of  me. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  say  you  looked  out  of  the  door. 
Which  door?     A.    The  baggage-car  door. 

Q.  Side  door  or  front  door?  A.  Side  door;  the  big 
door,  on  the  right-hand  side  towards  1$  iston.  I  saw  the  I 
way  ;   and  when  my  car  came  down,  I  got  out  from  the  n 

Q.  On  looking  out  and  seeing  the  bridge  giving  way,  and  that  the 
cars  were  going  down,  what  did  you  do?  A.  I  didn't  think  of  jump- 
ing, but  I  laid  right  down  on  the  tloor  ;  and  when  the  car  got  about 


62  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

half-way  down  it  paused  for  a  second,  and  then  it  took  a  tumble  and 
rolled  over  on  its  top  and  landed  in  the  street. 

Q.    Where  were  you?     A.    I  was  in  the  baggage  compartment. 

Q.   Where  were  you  then?     A.    I  was  there  then. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  In  the  monitor?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  had  the 
monitor  for  a  floor. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Were  you  bruised  at  all?  A.  Yes; 
slightly  bruised,  a  little  bit  injured  inside,  I  think. 

Q.  Then  what  did  you  do?  A.  Then  I  started  up  the  bank  to  go 
towards  the  station  to  flag  the  express  which  came  along,  and  I  met 
one  of  the  track  hands,  who  was  there  (as  it  happened  they  were 
working  there),  aud  I  sent  him  back,  and  came  back  and  went  to 
work  to  do  what  I  could  do. 

Q.  What  did  you  do9  A.  Well,  I  helped  get  people  out  of  the 
cars  the  best  I  could,  and  that  is  all  I  can  say. 

Q.  Where  did  you  work  principally?  A.  The  first  car  was  my 
smoker  that  I  went  into ;   then  from  there  into  the  passenger  coaches. 

Q.  You  mean  the  car  that  you  were  in,  —  combination  car  No.  1? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  things  in  that  car?  How  many  peo- 
ple were  there  in  it?  A.  When  I  left  Roslindale  the  seats  were  full ; 
it  was  well  seated. 

Q.  How  many  seats  are  there  in  it?  A.  I  believe  it  seats,  with 
the  stove  in,  somewhere  between  thirty-eight  and  forty  ;  I  don't  know. 

Q.    There  was  a  stove  in  the  car?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Fire  in  the  stove?     A.   Fire  in  the  stove. 

Q.  That  was  in  the  passenger  part,  was  it?  A.  That  was  in  the 
passenger  part. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  when  you  got  back  to  the  car?  A.  Well,  I 
found  some  men  that  were  working  there  taking  up  those  that  were 
injured  and  those  that  were  killed.     I  took  hold  and  did  the  same. 

Q.  How  many  did  you  help  get  out  of  that  car?  A.  Some  three 
or  four ;  I  don't  know  just  how  many. 

Q.  Anybody  killed  there?  A.  There  was;  I  forget  just  how 
many.     There  were  some  killed  there,  —  two  or  three  or  four. 

Q.  Those  were,  of  course,  all  men?  A.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  all 
men. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there?  A.  Well,  not  over  five  minutes 
I  don't  think  it  took.  I  looked  at  the  stove  and  saw  there  was  no 
fire  coming  out  of  it,  and  I  went  into  the  passenger  cars. 

Q.   Then  what  did  you  do?    A.    I  done  the  same  there. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  things  in  the  passenger  car  No.  82? 
A.  No.  82  set  right  side  up.  It  looked  as  though  it  had  been  badly 
shaken  up ;  the  seats  were  thrown   around   the   foor,   lamps,   etc., 


APPENDIX. 

strewn  around  there  ;  but  it  set  right  side  up,  oue  side  pretty  badly 
smashed. 

Q.   Which  side  was  that?     A.    The  left-hand  aide. 

Q.    Facing  towards  Boston?     A.    Ye>. 

Q.  Did  you  find  any  persons  killed  in  that  car?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
didn't  find  a  soul  in  it. 

Q.    Nobody  in  that  car?     A.    Not  in  that  car. 

Q.    Then  what  did  3*011  do?     A.    Then  I  went  still  further  forward. 

Q.    To  81?     A.    Well,  I  don't  know  the   numbers  of  them;  they 
were  all  in  a  pile  there,  so  I  could  not  tell  one  from  another  :  al 
I  didn't  notice  whether  I  was  in  81  or  in  80. 

Q.  Did  No.  82,  the  next  car  in  front  of  you,  have  any  other  car  on 
top  of  it?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  went  forward,  and  you  found  another  car.  Did  that 
have  any  cor  on  top  of  it?  A.  I  can't  say;  I  know  there  were 
several  there  piled  up  together ;  I  can't  say  as  to  that  next  car,  but  I 
think  it  did. 

Q.  Did  you  find  any  other  persons  killed  there?  A.  I  found 
several. 

Q.    I  mean  after  you  left  the  combination  car?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

(j.  Did  you  take  any  special  notice  ns  to  how  the  cars  were 
arranged  in  the  street?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  didn't. 

Q.  What  did  }-ou  do  down  there  further?  You  say  you  helped 
out  some  of  the  people.  How  long  were  you  about  it?  A.  I  don't 
know,  I  am  sure;  time  passed  very  quickly;  1  don't  know  anything 
about  the  time  ;  I  can't  tell  3011. 

Q.  When  did  you  give  up  taking  out  people?  A.  When  every- 
thing  was  clone  that  I  could  do  ;  when  they  were  all  out,  as  far  as  I 
knew. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  evidences  of  any  of  the  woodwork  taking  fire. 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  some  cars  were  on  top  of  others,  do  you?  A.  res, 
sir ;  1  know  they  were. 

Q.  Did  you  come  up  on  to  the  track  on  the  Boston  side  of  the 
bridge?     A.    I  did,  after  a  while,  though  not  then. 

Q.    What  did  you  find  then?     A.    Not   anything  that  I   took   any 
notice  of  at  all.     I  didn't  take  any  notice  of  the  cars  there  at 
1  couldn't  state. 

Q.  Did  you  go  back  on  to  the  Dedham  aide  of  the  bii  Ige,  on  to 
the  embankment?     A.    I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  peculiar  there?  A.  No,  air;  I  didn't 
notice  anything. 

<,>.    Did  you  notice  any  trucks  up  there?     A.    N-  . 

(^>.    Did  you  know  where  the  trucks  of  your  combination  car  were? 


64  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

A.  No;  I  didn't  notice;  didn't  look  to  see  where  they  were.  1 
supposed  they  must  have  been  on  the  car ;  I  don't  know  whether  they 
were  thrown  off  or  not ;  I  didn't  notice. 

Q.  You  didn't  notice  whether  they  were  on  the  car,  or  left  behind? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  jar  that  you  first  felt?  A.  The 
nature  was  as  though  we  struck  something. 

Q.  As  if  you  had  met  some  obstacle  ?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  severe  was  it?     A.    Not  very  severe. 

Q.    Did  it  throw  you  off  your  feet?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  did  it  throw  you?  A.  It  didn't  throw  me  any  at 
all ;  just  kind  of  moved  me  a  little,  that  is  all. 

Q.  How  were  you  standing,  do  you  remember?  A.  No  ;  I  don't 
seem  to  remember. 

Q.  Facing  forward,  or  back,  or  sideways  ?  A.  I  think  likely  I  was 
standing  sideways  looking  out  of  the  door.  My  door  was  open,  and 
I  would  naturally  be  looking  out  of  it,  standing  side  of  the  front  end. 

Q.  If  you  did,  would  you  have  your  hands  on  each  side  of  the 
door?     A.    No  ;  I  wouldn't  be  standing  as  close  to  it  as  that. 

Q.  How  about  the  speed  at  which  the  train  was  going  then,  was  it 
going  slower  or  faster  than  usual?  A.  It  was  going  about  the  same 
rate  of  speed.  When  the  cars  commenced  to  go  through  the  bridge, 
the  rear  end,  I  think,  commenced  to  go  faster  then  ;  but  when  the 
engine  struck  the  bridge,  we  were  going  at  the  usual  rate  of  speed. 

Q.  The  speed  increased  after  you  looked  out  and  saw  the  cars 
going  through  the  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  it  did. 

Q.  How  is  it  about  that  curve  there,  just  before  you  come  to  the 
bridge;  is  it  a  pretty  sharp  curve?  A.  I  never  noticed,  — I  never 
noticed  the  curve  at  all. 

Q.  How  about  the  bridge  itself,  had  you  felt  any  rocking  when 
you  came  on  or  off  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  never  felt  anything  at  all.  I 
always  had  just  as  much  confidence -in  that  bridge  as  I  had  in  any 
part  of  the  road  ;  I  never  feared  it  at  all. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  that  you  never  felt  any  jar  as  you  came  off  of  that 
bridge  before?     A.    Never  felt  a  jar  ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  passengers  talk  about  that  bridge. 
A.   No,  sir  ;  never  heard  a  word. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  What  do  you  use  for  brakes,  — automatic 
or  straight  air?     A.    Straight  air. 

Q.  Are  there  any  automatic  brakes  on  the  Boston  &  Providence 
Railroad?     A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  main  road  they  are  all  automatic. 

Q.  It  was  straight  air  on  that  branch  all  the  time?  A.  It  was 
straight  air  ;  yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  65 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  receive  any  signal  from  the 
engineer?     A.    None  at  all. 

Q.  Were  the  brakes  set  on  the  train,  do  you  think?  A.  No;  I 
don't  think  they  were.  If  they  were,  they  gi  t  released  before  the  train 
broke  apart. 

Q.  As  soon  as  you  discovered  that  the  bridge  was  giving  way,  you 
did  not  attempt  to  apply  the  brake?  A.  No,  sir :  didn't  have  time 
to. 

Q.  Did  you  give  any  signal  to  the  other  people  in  the  car?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do?  A.  Oh,  I  just  told  them  the  bridge  bad 
gone. 

Q.  How  did  yon  do  that?  A.  Just  told  them,  that  was  all.  There 
were  a  few  in  my  compartment;  I  told  them  that  the  bridge  had  gone. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  people  in  the  other  part  of  thecal?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  I  didn't  have  time  ;  if  I  did,  I  didn't  think  of  it. 

Q.  What  did  the  other  men  in  your  compartment  do?  A.  I 
didn't  notice,  it  was  done  so  sudden  ;  I  couldn't  tell  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Were  any  of  those  men  killed?  A.  I  haven't  seen  them  all ;  I 
don't  know.     I  met  one  afterwards;  he  was  all  right. 

Q.  How  many  do  you  think  were  there?  A.  Oh,  I  don't  know,  I 
am  sure.  To  tell  the  truth,  1  didn't  notice.  There  were  four  or  five 
in  there,  I  guess. 

The  Chairman.  I  suppose,  Mr.  Putnam,  there  is  no  question  but 
these  are  straight  air  brakes,  and  not  automatic? 

Mr.  Putnam.  To  tell  the  truth,  I  don't  know  the  difference  :  I  am 
wh<  lly  ignorant.  I  have  no  doubt  what  the  witness  says  is  true.  I 
have  not  talked  with  him  before.  At  any  rate,  whatever  the  fact  is 
will  be  stated  to  the  Board  ;  whoever  knows  will  give  you  the  infor- 
mation. 

Q.    Was  your  car  fitted  with  the  Miller  platform?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  all  the  cars  of  the  train?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    You  know  they  were?     A.   Yes,  sir;  I  am  sine  of  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Who  were  the  persons  with  you  in  your 
compartment?  A.  I  don't  know  their  names;  they  were  Roslindale 
folks. 

Q.  Don't  know  any  of  them  by  name?  A.  No,  sir;  not  any  of 
thera. 

Q.  Did  any  of  them  look  out  of  the  door  with  you  when  you  op  >ned 
your  door?     A.    I  think  not;  I  won't  say  for  sure. 

Q.  Was  the  door  opened  for  that  purpose?  A.  No,  >ir ;  it  was 
open  ;  it  had  been  open  since  we  left  Dedham. 

Q.  Was  it  still  open  when  the  car  went  through  the  bridge? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 


6(3  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    Wide  open?     A.    Wide  open,  and  fastened  back. 
Q.    When  you  looked  out,  you  say  you  saw  the  bridge  going  down? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  cars  fall  with  the  bridge  at  that  time? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  saw  cats,  I  think  the  first  ones  that  went  through  the 
bridge,  I  should  judge. 

Q  Which  did  you  see  fir>t,  the  car  or  the  bridge  going  down? 
A.    I  could  not  answer  that ;  I  suppose  they  were  both  together. 

Q  You  don't  know  which  attracted  your  attention  Grot?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Which  way  did  the  cars  fall,  to  the  right  or  to  the  left? 
A.   They  seemed  to  be  sinking  to  the  left. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  tell  us  which  car  that  was?  A.  No,  sir ;  I  could 
:not. 

Q.  About  how  many  cars  ahead  was  it?  A.  I  don't  know;  I 
should  suppose  it  was  the  first  one  that  went  through. 

Q.  Could  you  see  the  engine?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  notice  it ;  if  I 
did  I  don't  remember  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  more  than  one  car  go  over?  A.  There  were  two  or 
three,  I  think,  there  all  together,  I  should  suppose.  I  didn't  notice 
the  whole  of  them  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  I  mean,  while  you  were  looking  out,  was  there  more  than  one 
car  that  you  saw  pitch  over  into  the  road?  A.  I  can't  tell,  for  I  put 
my  head  in  pretty  quick. 

Q.  You  can't  answer  that  question?  A.  No,  sir,  I  can't  answer 
that. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Is  the  track  straight  at  that  point  where 
you  looked  out  on  to  the  bridge?  A.  The  track  is  straight  on 
either  side  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Down  where  you  looked  out  on  the  bridge  is  the  track  straight? 
A.  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  or  not.  I  know  it  is  straight  coming 
on  to  the  bridge  and  going  off  the  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  looked  out  of  the  right-hand  door 
coming  towards  Boston.  Did  your  car  turn  over  to  the  right? 
A.    It  turned  to  the  right. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  The  cars  that  you  saw  going  with  the 
bridge  were  going  to  the  left?     A.    Yes,  —  going  to  the  left. 

Q.   And  your  car  went  to  the  right?     A.    My  car  went  to  the  right. 
Q.   Did   the   one   in   front  of  you   go   to   the   right   or'  the   left? 
A.    The  one  in  front  of  me  settled  right  down  ;  it  didn't  turn  either 
one  way  or  the  other.     That  is  the  way  I  saw  it  after  it  was  down. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)      Was    it    in    the    line    of    the    track? 
A.    Yes,  sir ;  it  appeared  to  be  pretty  nearly  in  the  line  of  the  track. 
Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     You  were  in  the  rear  car,  which  was  the 


APPENDIX.  67 

When  your  ear  went  down,  did  i 
to  twist  around  off  the  track?     A.    No,  sir,  I  don't  know  as  it  did. 

Q.  Look  here  a  moment.  The  track  is  running  in  this  way  :  here 
is  the  street;  and  3-0111- ear  was  here  at  the  end  of  the  train,  and  it 
fell  down  into  that  position.  Now,  it  must  have  twisted  in  going  from 
here  to  there.  Did  you  notice  it?  A.  Yes.  I  didn't  notice  it  at  the 
time  it  fell,  but  afterwards. 

Q.   That  is  what  I  want  to  know,  —  when  it,  fell?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Do   you  remember  whether   any  of  tin- 
other  people  in  the  car  were  thrown  off  their  feet  l>y  the  jar  you  Bpeak 
of?     A.    No  ;    I   guess  they  were  not.     They  were   not   in   m . 
partment,  any  way. 

Q.  Were  they  standing  up?  A.  Yes;  there  were  no  Beats  there 
for  them. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  The  baggage  compartment  of  t_l i< ■  car 
lay  up  towards  .Jamaica  Plain?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Which  end  of  the  car  was  the  bi 
part,  —  the  Boston  end?     A.    The  front  end  of  the  car,  yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  the  passengers  were  behind?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Adjourned  to  Wednesday,  at  10.30. 


SECOND    DAY. 

Boston,  March  16,  1887 
The  Board  met  at  10.30,  and  Messrs.  A.  A.  Folsom  and  I 
Richards  were  called  and  sworn. 

Mr.  Putnam  exhibited  to  the  Board  several  photographs,  showing 
the  condition  of  the  bridge  originally,  and  the  scene  after  the  accident. 

Testimony  of  George  Richards. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence  ?    A.   Roxbury. 

Q.    Your  age?     A.    Fifty-nine. 

Q.   What  is  your  connection  with  the  railroad?     A.    I  am  master 
mechanic,  and  have  charge  of  the  locomotives  and  rolling  stock. 
Q.    How  long  have  you  been  in  that  capacity?     A.    8 

and  over. 

Q.   How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  road?    A.   Thirty- 
eight  years. 

Q.  And  in  what  capacity  before  yon  became  master  me 
A.    As   fireman,  engineer,  machinist,   telegraph  op 
keeper. 


es  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  the  accident?  A.  About  twenty 
minutes  past  seven  ;  twenty  or  twenty-five  past. 

Q.    Where  were  you  at  the  time  ?     A.    At  the  shop. 

Q.   At  what  shop?     A.    At  the  workshop  in  Roxbury,  in  the  office. 

Q.  What  did  you  do?  A.  I  commenced  to  get  ready  for  a  train 
to  go  out,  —  had  to  send  out  engines  for  other  purposes,  doctors  and 
so  on,  and  waited  for  another  one,  —  and  got  started,  I  think,  about 
7.40,  —  7.35  or  7.40,  —  and  went  up  to  the  scene  of  the  wreck  with  a 
wrecking  car  and  a  lot  of  men. 

Q.  About  7.40,  you  think?  A.  I  think  about  7.40  ;  I  don't  know 
the  time. 

Q.  How  many  men?  A.  All  that  were  handy,  perhaps  twenty- 
five. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  when  you  got  there?  A.  Well,  when  I  first 
arrived  all  hands  went  immediately  down  the  bank  to  see  what  we 
could  do  in  getting  the  people  out.  All  of  the  living  had  been  taken 
out;  but  there  were  four  bodies,  possibly  six,  I  am  not  sure  which, 
that  were  fastened  in. 

Q.  They  were  there  then,  — had  not  been  gotten  out?  A.  No, 
sir ;  they  were  fastened  in  so  that  they  could  not  be  got  out  without 
jacks  or  levers. 

Q.  There  were  no  others  that  had  not  been  gotten  out,  then,  besides 
those  dead  persons?  A.  Four,  I  think.  We  got  those  four  out  and 
then  searched  the  train  thoroughly  for  more. 

Q.  And  you  found  no  more  in  the  train?  A.  Saw  no  more  in  the 
train. 

Q.  When  you  got  out  there,  then,  the  injured  had  practically  all 
been  gotten  out?  A.  They  were.  There  was  quite  a  number  round 
there  that  were  putting  them  into  wagons,  and  some  of  them  were 
laid  on  stretchers,  and  they  were  taking  them  away  as  fast  as  they 
could.  I  do  not  know,  but  perhaps  there  was  a  dozen  that  I  saw  on 
my  way  to  the  cars. 

Q.  Down  the  bank?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  went  down  the  bank  on  the 
icy  side,  on  the  west  side. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  the  condition  of  the  cars  there  then  ?  A. 
Well,  those  below  were  piled  one  on  top  of  the  other.  The  photo- 
graph shows  better  than  I  can  describe  them.  One  was  bottom  up- 
wards, others  were  over  on  their  sides  in  part,  twisted  in  together, 
woven  together  in  various  shapes.  There  were  parts  of  three  cars  on 
the  bank  on  the  east  side ;  that  is,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  those  cars?  A.  The  first  car, 
which  was  No.  52,  was  entirely  off  and  clear  of  the  track. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  car  in  the  train?  A.  That  was  the  first  car 
in  the  train. 


APPENDIX. 

Q.    On  which  side?     A.    On  the  east  Bide. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  its  trucks?  A.  The  forward  truck 
was  in  its  place  and  the  rear  truck  was  on  the  other  Bide  of  the  track, 
and  had  fallen  down  the  incline  on  the  west  side  and  held  by  a  brake 
rod  which  was  attached  to  the  car  and  about  at  right  angles  with  the 
track.  It  was  so  far  down  that  cutting  that  rod  would  have  let  it 
clown. 

Q.    Then  this  car  was  standing  with  its  front  elevated  and; 
resting  on  the  ground?     A.    The  rear  resting  on  the  ground. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  second  car.  No.  18?  A.  The 
second  car  was  nearly  over  the  track,  not  much  out  of  place, — the 
body  of  the  car.  The  trucks  were  driven  back,  both  of  them,  near 
together  at  the  rear  end  of  the  car. 

Q.  Was  the  rear  truck  driven  back?  A.  Both  tracks  were  driven 
back.  The  forward  truck  and  the  rear  truck  were  near  together. 
The  forward  truck  was  nearly  at  the  rear  end,  but  still  locked  in  there 
so  tnat  we  had  some  difficulty  in  moving  it. 

O.    And  out  on  which  side  of  the  car?     A.    On  thp  east  side. 

Q.  The  rear  truck  was  also  thrown  back  out  of  place?  A.  Fes, 
sir;  the  rear  truck  was  back  out  of  place  a  little  to  the  east  Bide  of 
the  centre  of  the  car,  off  the  rails. 

Q.    Both  of  them  off  the  rails?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  was  the  car  broken?  A.  The  rear  end  of  it  was 
broken  out,  or  broken  in  rather.  There  had  been  a  collision,  a  tele- 
scoping; the  rear  of  the  second  car  had  telescoped  with  the  forward 
end  of  the  third  car,  and  then  been  pulled  apart  afterwards,  leaving 
the  Miller  platform  of  the  forward  end  of  the  third  car  locked  in  to 
the  rear  platform  of  the  second,  so  that  it  was  quite  a  job  to  part 
them. 

Q.  The  Miller  platform  on  the  forward  end  of  the  third  car.  when 
you  found  it,  was  next  to  the  end  of  the  second  car?  A.  No,  Bir,  it 
was  interlocked  with  the  rear  platform  of  the  second  car  ;  and  the 
body  of  the  third  car,  what  there  was  remaining,  was  Bome  eight  or 
ten  feet  back,  showing  that  they  had  been  telescoped,  and  then  [lulled 
apart  by  some  power. 

Q.  That  the  two  cars,  the  second  and  third,  had  been  crushed 
together.  Was  the  Miller  platform  of  the  third  car  above  or  below 
the  Miller  platform  of  the  second  car?  A.  The  platform  of  the  third 
car  was  above  the  platform  of  the  second. 

Q.  They  had  been  crushed  together,  and  the  rear  end  of  the  second 
car  had  been  crushed  in  by  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far?  A.  Well,  the  walls  of  the  front  end  wasn't  Crushed 
much  of  any,  but  the  whole  of  the  back  end  was  broken  in,  and  the 
walls  spread  and  twisted  on  one  side. 


70  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Well,  five  feet  from  the  end  of  the  car,  or  how  much?  A.  I 
could  not  say.  It  would  not  be  necessary  to  go  more  than  six  inches 
in  order  to  crush  the  end  of  the  car  in,  and  there  is  no  means  of 
knowing  how  far  it  went  in  there. 

Q.  Then  the  Miller  platform  of  the  third  car.  having  been  pushed 
on  top  of  the  Miller  platform  at  the  rear  of  the  second  car,  got  locked 
in  with  it  and  remained  there,  and  the  third  car  was  pulled  off  from 
it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  connection  between  the  Miller  platform  that  was 
at  the  front  end  of  the  third  car  and  the  car  itself,  when  you  got  out 
there  ?  A.I  think  not,  —  not  a  rod  nor  anything  ;  I  believe  there  was 
no  connection  left. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  condition  of  the  third  car?  A.  Well,  the 
third  car —  both  ends  were  knocked  in  and  the  trucks  gone. 

Q.  The  third  car  was  what  number,  do  you  know?  A.  Twenty- 
eight. 

Q.  Both  ends  knocked  in?  A.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  trucks  were 
missing. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  they  were?  A.  No;  probably  with  the 
bridge  below  ;  couldn't  have  been  in  any  other  place. 

Q.  Did  you  look  around  on  the  embankment  to  find  those  trucks? 
A.  I  did;  theie  were  no  trucks  on  the  embankment  except  the  two 
pairs. 

Q.  You  are  sure  that  they  were  not  on  the  embankment  then? 
A.    I  am. 

Q.    And  that  car  was  in  what  position  with  reference  to  the  track, 

—  was  it  nearly  on  the  track  or  off  the  track?  A.  Well,  nearly  over 
the  track  ;  there  was  but  little  left  of  it.  In  fact  there  was  almost  a 
total  destruction  of  that  car,  so  that  it  required  but  a  little  effort  to 
twist  the  body  asunder,  and  throw  it  down  the  bank. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  floor  of  that  car?  A.  I  could 
not  say  ;  some  of  the  men  went  to  work  on  that  car  and  twisted  it 
over  and  pitched  it  down  the  bank,  the  side,  the  top  and  the  flooring, 

—  so  that  I  could  not  say  much  about  that  car.  They  pitched  first 
one  side  down  and  then  the  other,  and  then  the  flooring  and  then  the 
roof  on  top  of  that. 

Q.  The  top  and  the  sides  were  so  disconnected  that  it  was  com- 
paratively easy,  you  say,  for  the  men  to  break  it  up?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
by  rocking  it  sideways  they  parted  it.  One  of  those  photographs 
shows  how  the  condition  was.  The  photograph  was  taken  after  the 
car  was  pitched  down,  but  it  lies  on  one  side. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  third  car  from  the  abutment  of  the  bridge? 
A.  Well,  1  didn't  notice  particularly,  but  I  should  think  it  was  fifteen 
feet  to  the  nearest  point  on  the  skew  of  the  abutment. 


APPENDIX.  71 

Q.    Was  there  another  car  or  any  portion  of  any  other  car  between 
there  and  the  abutment?    A.    I  think  not.     There  might  have  been 
some  small  pieces,  but  nothing  to  attract  attention.     I  don'l  reco 
seeing  anything  except  some  small  slivers  that  might  have  come  from 
either  of  the  cars. 

Q.  There  was  no  extra  monitor  top  up  then?  A.  There  was  :i 
monitor  top  of  a  car  laid  on  the  east  side,  but  I  think  it  belonged  to 
28;  lam  not  sure;  I  was  on  the  move  round  and  didn't  notice  Ml 
there  was;  I  am  not  sure  whether  that  monitor  top  which  lay  on  the 
east  side  was  part  of  'is  or  of  another  car. 

Q.   Twenty-eight  was  which  car?     A.   The  third  ear  from  forward. 
Q.    Yon  are  not  sure  whether  that  monitor  top  which  lav  on  the 
east  side  was  the  top  of  ear  28  or  not?     A.    I   am  not  ;   I  think  it 
was. 

Q.  Now,  where  was  the  fourth  car?  A.  All  the  other  cars  of  the 
nine  were  down  below,  alongside  of  the  piers. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  seeing  the  fourth  car  out  there  anywhere. 
as  a  shape  in  any  way?  A.  Well.  I  saw  all  the  cars.  I  went  down 
and  went  round  them  and  went  across. 

Q.  Did  you  attempt  to  count  the  cars  down  there?  A.  I  did;  I 
counted  them  myself,  and  then  I  got  one  of  my  men  to  count  them 
and  report  to  me  the  number,  so  that  I  should  have  a  whole  list  of  the 
train. 

Q.  How  many  did  you  make?  A.  I  made  nine  ;  three  above  an  1 
six  below. 

Q.  There  were  six  cars  below,  were  there,  of  which  you  could  dis- 
tinguish the  shapes?  A.  I  thought  I  did;  I  counted  them  and 
I  thought  I  found  six  cars. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  generally  how  the  cars  lay  in  the  - 
beginning  at  the  front  end.  the  fourth  car?  A.  Well,  that  is  not  a 
very  casv  thing  to  do,  the  positions  were  so  irregular.  The  end  car 
was  entirely  bottom  upwards,  and  then  there  was  another  car  which 
was  on  top  of  another  one  still.  Then'  was  one  set  On  it- 
nearly  erect.  There  was  another  one  that  laid  over  on  its  side,  the 
wheels  partly  turned  towards  the  wall. 

Q.    Towards   what   wall?     A.    Towards    the   sooth    wall   or 
abutment.     It    is   rather  a   hard   matter  to  describe   the   positions 
onderstandingly. 

(^.  Suppose  you  e.  mC  here  and  Let  us  >ee  if  W6  can  flgure  this  out 
at  all. 

(The    witness     examined    the    photographs    and    pointed     out    the 
several  cars  as  well  as  he  could.) 
.  A.    It  is  very  difficult  to  describe  the  eoadiUon 
one  could  understand  it  without  looking  at  the  pi<  I 


72  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  rear  car  was  turned  completely  upside  down?  A.  The 
rear  car  was  turned  completely  upside  down. 

Q.  Then  the  next  car  in  front  of  that?  A.  This  (indicating)  was 
the  next  one  in  front.  The  people  represented  there  are  standing  on 
the  bottom  of  the  car. 

Q.  Then  the  next  car  was  turned  up  with  its  bottom  in  what 
direction?     A.    Partly  towards  the  south  wall. 

Q.  The  next  car  in  front  of  that?  A.  That  was  the  one  which  I 
spoke  of  as  standing  nearly  erect. 

Q.  Then  the  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  cars,  where  were  they? 
A.  One  car  was  on  top  of  another ;  I  do  not  know  about  the  order 
in  which  they  were  in  the  train  ;  I  didn't  look  at  that. 

Q.  Well,  they  wTere  the  fourth,  fifth  and  sixtli  cars,  and  one  of  them 
was  on  top  of  the  other.  Was  the  fourth  on  top  of  the  fifth,  or  the 
fifth  on  top  of  the  sixth?  A.  I  think  that  the  fifth  and  sixth  one 
was  on  top  of  the  other. 

Q.  Where  was  the  fourth  car?  A.  The  fourth  car  laid  partly 
hidden  heie. 

Q.  Partly  hidden  where?  A.  At  the  side  of  the  third  car,  west 
of  it.  I  think  that  shows  a  part  of  the  roof  of  the  car  which  was 
forward  of  that.  From  memory  I  should  think  that  that  would  be 
the  fourth,  that  the  fifth,  that  the  sixth,  that  the  seventh,  that  the 
eighth,  and  this  would  be  the  ninth.  There  was  part  of  a  car  in 
there  ;  I  crawled  through  there  yesterday. 

Q.  In  which  of  the  cars  were  the  most  people  injured  or  killed? 
A.  That  I  don't  know.  I  think  that  there  were  none  injured  in  the 
cars  that  were  on  the  b.mk  ;  whoever  might  have  been  in  those  cars 
were  removed  before  I  got  there.  I  saw  one  spot  of  blood  on  the 
bank  opposite  28,  which  was  the  car  that  was  so  thoroughly  de- 
stroyed ;  and  I  was  told  (of  course  that  is  of  no  account)  that  there 
were  but  few  passengers  in  that  car.  The  killed  and  wounded,  as 
I  saw  them,  were  down  below  in  the  highway  ;  and  they  wouldn't 
have  been  likely  to  have  carried  them  down  that  icy  bank  on  that 
side.     They  must  have  been  in  the  cars  below,  I  should  say. 

Q.  Well,  were  they  mostly  in  the  last  three  cars  or  in  the  three  cars 
forming  the  middle  of  the  train?  A.  Well,  those  that  we  took  out 
were  about  the  mddle  of  the  train  ;  I  didn't  notice  the  number  of  the 
car.     The  others  I  can  say  nothing  about. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  out  there  that  gave  you  any  clew  as  to  the 
nature  and  cause  of  the  accident?  A.  Well,  the  telescoping  of  those 
cars  seemed  to  indicate  that  there  was  some  kind  of  breakage  of  some 
part  of  the  train.  I  cannot  conceive  of  how  that  could  be  done  under 
any  other  principle  than  that  there  must  have  been  some  shock,  and 


APPENDIX.  78 

that  that  shock  knocked  the  bridge  down.     The  cars  were  Br  inly  tele- 
scoped and  then  pulled  apart.     I  can  see  do  other  clew  to  it. 

Q,  What  kind  of  an  accident  would  cause  such  a  telescoping  as 
that?  A.  Anything  which  would  suddenly  check  the  momentum  of 
the  train  forward,  allowing  the  rear  of  the  heavy  train  to  crush  into 
it,  such  as  derailment,  a  broken  truck  or  parts  of  a  truck.  There  are 
probably  five  hundred  causes  which  might  be  conceived  of,  any  one  of 
which  might  have  caused  such  an  accident  ;  any  one  of  them  might 
have  been  the  cause  or  the  result. 

Q.  You  found,  did  you  not,  that  the  front  truck  of  the  forward  car 
remained  on  the  track,  —  was  not  tin  own  off?  A.  No,  it  was  under 
the  car,  but  several  feet  off  the  track:  it  stood  in  its  place. 

Q.    It  was  in  its  place  under  the  car?     A.    res, 

Q.  The  rear  truck  of  that  car  was  thrown  off,  both  trucks  of  the 
next  car  were  thrown  back  out  of  place,  and  both  trucks  of  the  third 
car  were  entirely  removed,  — disappeared?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  what  does  that  suggest  to  your  mind  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  accident?  If  a  train  runs  oil'  the  track  simply,  docs  the  bumping 
of  the  cars  on  the  sleepers  remove  the  trucks  from  under  the  car-? 
A.  It  usually  does  if  the  blows  arc  severe  enough.  It  depends  upon 
how  much  obstruction  it  meets  in  the  way  of  sleepers,  cro>s  timbers, 
or  whatever  there  may  be.  It  depends  upon  the  strength  of  the  fas- 
tenings. 

Q.  With  a  train  going  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  would 
you  expect  the  trucks  to  be  thrown  from  three  cars  in  that  way  by 
simple  derailment  in  going  that  distance  ?  A.  Not  on  frozen  ground  ; 
but  if  they  struck  against  some  strong  obstruction,  as,  for  instance, 
sinking  between  deep-down  ties  in  frozen  ground. 

Q.  Did  they  in  this  case  sink  between  deep-down  ties?  A.  Well, 
the  ties  on  the  bridge  were  the  ones  which  would  do  the  basin 
anywhere.  I  saw  no  signs  of  any  derailment  on  the  ties  on  the 
ground.  There  had  been  so  much  tramping  and  nm\  ing  around  there, 
that  there  was  nothing  that  I  noticed.  I  could  not  have  Been  much  if 
I  had  paid  particular  attention  to  it.  I  looked  some  to  find  some 
marks  and  found  none. 

Q.  Would  the  ties  on  the  bridge  take  a  truck  off  of  a  ear? 
A.  Well,  they  might ;  a  very  slight  derailment  sometimes  takes  the 
trucks  back,  and  other  times  they  will  hold  on  wonderfully. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  original  cause  of  the  accident  was  derail- 
ment? A.  I  think  there  was  something  of  the  kind.  I  think  then 
was  a  partial  derailment  or  an  obstruction  of  some  kind,  a-  tin-  drop- 
ping of  some  parts,  very  much  as  it  would  be  if  something  dropped 
on  the  track. 

Q.    Do  you  think  that  the  derailment  began  on  the  bridge?     A.    If 


74  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

there  was  any  such  it  must  have  begun  on  the  bridge,  as  the  track 
south  of  the  bridge  shows  no  marks  on  the  ties  or  on  the  ground  that 
I  could  find. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  ties  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  have  not; 
they  were  covered  with  cars  the  last  time  I  was  there,  covered  by  the 
wreck,  and  I  could  not  examine  them. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  of  the  ties  on  the  north  end  of  the  bridge? 
A.  Well,  the  rails,  which  were  long  rails  extending  some  ways  bej'ond 
the  abutment,  those  were  gone  —  one  on  the  right  and  one  on  the  left ; 
and  the  ground  was  frozen  where  the  rails  commenced  ;  and  there  had 
been  so  much  tramping  over  there  that  I  could  not  see  any  marks  of 
wheels.  Where  all  those  trucks  were  derailed,  four  of  them,  and 
weie  found  off  the  track,  you  could  not  see  the  marks,  the  tramping 
there  had  disfigured  the  ground  so. 

Q.  Were  there  any  marks  on  the  sleepers?  A.  I  didn't  notice  any 
until  we  got  forty  feet  away  ;  the  first  I  noticed.  I  didn't  pay  particu- 
lar attention  to  looking  up  that  side  of  it.  The  fact  was  evident  that 
those  trucks  were  off  the  track  early  ;  that  they  must  have  been  off 
the  track  at  the  abutment. 

Q.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  they  were  off  the  track  before  they 
reached  the  abutment?  A.  I  saw  none  ;  if  there  is,  it  would  be  found 
down  below  the  cars,  as  I  last  saw  them  ;  they  have  since  removed 
the  truck  parts  of  the  cars. 

Q.  If  those  ties  show  any  marks,  will  they  be  preserved?  A.  I 
presume  they  will. 

Q.    Are  3'ou  managing  that?     A.    I  have  nothing  to  do  with  that. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Folsom,  have  you  given  any  orders  to  have 
everything  of  that  sort  preserved? 

Mr.  Folsom.  I  have  given  orders  to  have  everything  appertaining 
to  the  bridge  and  cars  carried  to  the  shop  and  carefully  taken  care  of- 

The  Chairman.  Will  the  men  appreciate  the  importance  of  pre- 
serving the  ties  belonging  to  the  bridge? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  will  say  that  Mr.  Philbrick  and  Mr.  Doane  will  both 
examine  the  ties  and  everything  relating  to  that  bridge  as  soon  as  the 
work  will  enable  them  to  do  so. 

Q.  The  train  evidently  went  off  the  track.  Do  you  think  that 
there  may  have  been  a  settling  of  the  bridge  and  that  the  cars  were 
derailed  as  they  struck  the  abutment,  and  that  the  sinking  of  the 
bridge  and  the  jar  through  that  may  have  removed  those  trucks  and 
wrenched  them  out  of  place?  A.  The  trucks  of  the  third  car  must 
have  struck  the  abutment  and  then  toppled  over  with  the  bridge. 
About  the  time  that  they  struck  the  abutment  the  bridge  must  have 
goue  down,  for  the  angle  at  which  the  trucks  struck  the  bridge  would 
force  the  bridge  down  to  the  left. 


APPENDIX.  75 

Q.  The  trucks  of  the  third  car  must  have  struck  the  abutment, 
because  they  went  down  into  the  Btreet.  Now,  the  third  car,  never- 
theless, crushed  into  the  second  car  in  front  of  it?  A.  Yea  j  proba- 
bly previous  to  that. 

Q.  May  it  not  have  been  at  the  time  when  the  Beoond  car  -truck 
the  abutment  that  the  third  car  crushed  into  it?  A.  I  hardly  think 
it  possible  from  the  condition  of  things;  I  think  that  the  telescoping 
was  previous  to  that. 

Q.  Previous  to  the  time  that  the  second  car  left  the  bridge? 
A.  Previous  to  the  second  car  striking  the  abutment  and  that  being 
telescoped,  and  then  when  the  trucks  of  the  rear  car  struck  the 
abutment,  it  sheered  the  trucks  off  and  also  parted  the  platform  from 
the  forward  end  of  the  rear  car.  I  think  that  the  rear  platform  of  the 
third  car  also  went  down  with  the  trucks  from  the  pulling  of  the 
train  beyond  it.  This  third  ear.  No.  28,  was  a  Lighter  car,  weaker 
car,  lighter  built;  and  of  course  it  would  sutler  under  such  condi- 
tions where  the  other  ones  would  not. 

Q.  Now,  is  there  anything  that  you  saw  that  is  inconsistent  with 
the  theory  that  the  bridge  settled  somewhat;  didn't  entirely  give 
way,  but  settled  somewhat  when  the  engine  went  over;  that  the  Bret 
car  was  thrown  off  of  the  track  by  the  settlement;  that  the  rear 
trucks  of  the  first  car,  striking  the  abutment,  were  thrown  off  by 
that,  and  the  trucks  of  that  second  car  were  thrown  hack  ;  that  when 
the  third  car  went  over  the  bridge  it  had  still  further  settled,  and 
that  the  trucks  of  the  third  car  were  taken  off  completely,  and  then 
the  third  ear  got  on  to  the  embankment  and  the  rest  of  the  train  went 
down?  A.  Well,  that  might  be  possible  ;  it  is  very  hard  to  say. 
Q.    That  is  a  possible  solution?     A.    res. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  that  necessarily  militates  against  such  a 
theory?  A.  I  cannot  account  for  the  telescoping  of  the  oars  except 
in  one  of  two  ways:  One  is,  that  the  rear  of  the  train  rushed  on  to 
the  forward  car;  and  the  other  is,  that  the  bridge  rose  op  in-trad  of 
going  down,  — it  evidently  went  down,  and  the  two  ears  wen 
together;  and  in  no  way  that  I  can  think  of  can  it  he  done  excepl 
by  the  rear  of  the  train  rushing  on  the  forward  car,  or  the  bridge  ris- 
ing up. 

q.    The  front  car  being  in   some  way  suddenly  stopped  -      A..   Ye*, 
sir;   the  bridge  must  have  been  in  good  position  when  the  locomotive 
went  on,  for  the   locomotive   went  on   its  way   without    barm  except 
parting  from  the  first  car. 
Q.   How  do  you  explain  the  statement  of  the  engineer,  thai 

left  the  bridge  he  saw  the  front  end  of  the   locomotive   rise   and  felt  a 

jar  on  his  driving  wheels,  which  Id  hitn  to  look  around  to 

the  matter?     A.    Well,  as  I  understood  him,  —  he  didn't  make  it  very 


76  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

plain ,  —  he  felt  a  resistance.  No  man  on  a  locomotive  or  car,  if  there 
is  a  resistance,  can  tell  whether  it  comes  from  the  front  or  rear.  If 
the  train  is  suddenly  checked  the  momentum  carries  that  person  for- 
ward ;  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  checking  from  behind  and 
in  front  that  I  can  see. 

Q.  If  it  was  the  fact  that  he  saw  the  front  end  of  the  engine  rise 
as  it  left  the  bridge,  what  would  that  tend  to  show?  A.  Well,  from 
the  form  of  that  bridge,  if  the  bridge  had  moved  enough  so  that  the 
motion  upward  was  perceptible,  the  locomotive  and  tender  must  have 
gone  down.  The  locomotive  and  tender  being  heavier  than  the  rest 
of  the  train,  they  must  have  gone  over  on  the  west  side. 

Q.    That  is,  that  was  the  side  where  there  was  the  greatest  strain,  i 
do  you  mean?     A.    That  was  the  side  where  there  was  the  greatest 
strain. 

Q.  How  does  an  iron  bridge  go  down  ?  Does  it  go  down  all  at 
once?  A.  Well,  it  depends  upon  the  construction  of  the  bridge, 
the  giving  way  of  one  member  and  then  another.  But  if  you  could 
cut  every  member  at  once  it  would  not  move  instantly  ;  it  would  take 
time  to  move,  slowty  at  first  and  then  faster.  Of  course,  one  part 
falling  throws  the  strain  on  the  other  part,  and  the  motion  is  compara- 
tively slow. 

Q.  You  are  the  person  in  charge  of  the  locomotives  and  cars?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  condition  of  this  locomotive  and  these 
cars?  A.  The  locomotive  was  built  in  1880,  weighed  about  82,000 
or  83,000  pounds,  and  was  in  good  general  condition.  The  tender 
probably  weighed  at  that  time  between  50,000  and  56,000  pounds. 
That  is  not  a  heavy  locomotive,  but  it  is  heavier  than  some  weigh. 
The  first  car  was  a  car  that  we  rebuilt  within  eighteen  months,  and 
was  very  strong  and  as  good  as  new.  We  laid  out  a  good  deal  of 
money  on  it. 

Q.  How  old  a  car  was  that?  A.  I  am  not  sure  about  its  age, 
but  in  rebuilding  we  took  off  all  the  older  parts.  The  trucks,  the 
only  thing  about  a  car  by  which  an  accident  could  happen,  were  en- 
tirely new,  and  they  are  in  good  condition  now.  The  next  car  was 
an  older  car,  but  so  good  that  we  decided  then  to  rebuild  it  and  laid 
out  about  $1,500  on  it.  It  is  as  strong  to-day  as  a  modern  car,  — 
stronger  than  some  are. 

Q.  How  old  a  car  was  it?  Do  you  keep  a  record  of  every  car? 
A.  I  keep  a  record,  but  I  began  in  1874  ;  many  of  those  cars  are 
older  than  that.     Some  of  them  I  do  not  know  the  age  of. 

Q.  You  have  a  record  of  each  one  of  those  cars  from  that  time 
down  to  the  present,  as  to  what  has  been  done  to  them?  A.  Gen- 
erally ;  yes. 


APPENDIX.  77 

The  Chairma.1T.     I    think    that  wo  had   better  have    the    al 
record  rather  than  Mr.  Richards'  memory  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

The  Witness.  The  question  that  I  was  asked  as  to  the  original 
construction  of  the  car,  I  could  not  answer.  Mr.  Folsom  may  have 
it  in  some  of  his  records.  The  first  and  second  cars  were  very  strong 
cars;  the  third  car  was  of  a  different  construction  from  the  common 
cars  in  its  form  and  features,  but  not  so  strong  as  the  others. 

Q.  Then  the  fourth  car,  No.  54?  A.  Fifty-four  is  one  of  the 
same  lot  that  was  thought  to  be  worth  rebuilding,  and  we  laid  out  a 
great  deal  of  money  on  it.     It  was  a  strong  car. 

Q.  Eighty-seven?  A.  Eighty-seven  was  but  a  few  years  old.  and 
as  strong  a  car  as  any  that  is  running  anywhere. 

Q.  Eighty-two,  eighty-one  and  eighty?  A.  Those  were  a  little 
older,  but  about  the  same  in  their  construction  and  equally  good. 

Q.  The  smallest  numbers  represent  the  greater  age,  do  they? 
A.  Not  certainly;  I  believe  we  have  some  cars  that  we  have 
switched  in,  as  we  call  it,  —  where  we  have  destroyed  old  ears  and 
replaced  them.  But  I  believe  it  does  in  this  case,  as  applied  to 
those  cars.     No  ;   No.  1  is  a  newer  car  than  28. 

Q.   Combination  No.  1,  you  mean?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  car  was  that?  A.  That  was  a  very  strong 
car. 

Q.  What  is  your  regulation  in  regard  to  the  examination  of  loco- 
motives and  cars?  Have  you  any  printed  regulations.  A.  We 
have  none. 

Q.  How  often  do  you  examine  locomotives?  A.  Well,  the  loco- 
motive engineer  is  the  inspector  of  engines,  and  the  engineers  are 
supposed  to  look  them  over  every  trip,  and  most  of  them  do.  For 
their  own  safety,  for  their  own  convenience,  they  will  do  that. 

Q.  But  as  far  as  your  duties  are  concerned,  what  examination  and 
how  often  do  you  make  an  examination  of  the  locomotives?  A. 
Well,  whenever  anything  is  reported  to  be  done  to  them,  and  then 
when  they  come  into  the  shop  they  are  taken  apart  and  all  the  parts 
thoroughly  examined. 

Q.    A  locomotive  then  runs  until  it  is  reported  to  you  as  t> 
some  way  out  of  order  ;  is  that  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  about  the  cars?     A.    They  have  a  regular  set  of  i; 
tors  who  examine  the  cars  from  time  to  time. 

Q.  How  often  do  they  examine  them?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know; 
it  is  different  on  different  trains.  On  the  trains  going  between  Bos- 
ton and  Providence,  the  cars  are  looked  over  at  both  ends  j  a  train 
running  like  this  train,  two  or  three  times  a  day. 

Q.  Are  the  cars  at  any  time  of  the  year  put  into  the  shop  and  thor- 
oughly examined?     A.    The  cars  are  sent  int.;  the  shop  about  once  a 


78  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

year,  whether  there  is  anything  the  matter  with  them  or  not ;  or  as 
near  once  a  3'ear  as  they  can. 

Q.  That  is  done  as  often  as  once  a  year?  A.  We  try  to  get 
around  once  a  year,  and  we  about  do  that ;  but  there  are  some  excep- 
tions. We  keep  the  shop  full  of  cars  all  the  time  for  that  purpose, 
and  intend  to  get  round  once  a  year,  if  possible. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  since  tt.ese  cars  were  examined  in  that  way? 
A.    I  cannot  say,  only  in  regard  to  one  of  them,  car  87. 

Q.  You  have  a  record  of  that  which  you  can  show?  A.  Yes,  sir, 
we  have  a  record  of  that  car ;  87,  which  had  the  broken  axle  which 
was  found,  was  in  the  shop  and  went  out  about  the  14th  of  January 
with  all  new  wheels  and  all  new  axles. 

Q.  You  found  a  broken  axle  on  that,  did  you?  A.  We  found  a 
journal  broken  off. 

Q.  What  part?  A.  What  we  call  the  journal  is  the  turned  part 
close  into  the  shoulder ;  in  fact,  that  is  the  only  place  where  a  journal 
ever  breaks. 

Q.    Close  in  to  the  shoulder?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)    This  broken  journal  was  on  87  ?    A.    On  87. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     How  long  ago  was  that  put  into  the  shop 

and  thoroughly  examined?     A.   It  came  out  of  it  the  14th  of  January 

last.     A  record  is  kept  of  these  cars  when  they  come  in  and  when 

they  go  out,  and  a  general  record  of  what  is  done  to  them. 

Q.  You  happened  to  see  that  journal?  You  don't  know  whether 
other  journals  are  broken  or  not?  A.  No,  sir  ;  the  trucks  have  been 
brought  to  the  shop ;  I  saw  them  this  morning. 

Q.  Anything  peculiar  about  that  break?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know 
that  there  is.  All  breaks  are  peculiar  in  some  respects,  and  are  not 
by  any  means  alike.  If  an  axle  or  piece  of  iron  is  broken  in  one  way 
they  call  them  crystalline  ;  if  they  are  broken  in  another  way  they  call 
them  fibrous.  A  piece  of  iron  may  be  broken  an  inch  and  a  half 
apart,  and  broken  in  a  different  manner  so  that  the  two  fractures 
won't  show  any  relation  to  each  other ;  and  so  much  so  that  an  expert, 
or  some  that  call  themselves  expert,  will  pronounce  on  the  quality  of 
the  iron  as  one  being  poor  and  the  other  good,  when  the  two  parts  are 
only  an  inch  or  an  inch  and  a  half  apart.  That  is  quite  a  common 
thing. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  this  fracture,  —  crystalline  or  fibrous? 
A.  This  was  broken  in  a  way  to  show  crystalline,  from  the  fact  that 
whatever  broke  it  or  whatever  strain  there  was  on  it  broke  it  at  the 
coiner. 

Q.  In  examining  the  bridge  did  you  discover  any  places  where  the 
bridge  showed  defects  as  far  as  you  have  gone  on  ?  A.  No  ;  I  don't 
know  that  I  have. 


APPENDIX.  7  I 

Q.    Any  places  where  there  irere   mated  cracks  or    atijtl 

that  sort?  A.  Tlie  only  thing  that  I  recollect  now.  then-  \\:i^  :i  plate 
of  cast  iron  which  was  merely  a  bearing  plate,  taking  compreasion 
only,  which  showed  some  rusty  cracks;  I  think  that  waa  all  ;  I  don't 
know  where  that  piece  belonged. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  piece  was  it?  Where  did  it  come  from?  A.  I 
dou't   know    that    I    can  show  it  ;     it  was  simply  a  |  iron. 

probably  a  bearing  plate. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     (Pointing  to  joint  block  <>n  the  photograph 
of  the  bridge.)      Are  you  sure  that   was  a   cast-iron    head?      A 
wa>  a  cast-iron  head. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     What  do  you  describe   that    pii  • 
being?     A.    Well,  it  was  T-shaped. 

Q.  "What  is  the  technical  name  for  it  in  bridge  building?  A.  I 
don't  know  what  member  it  was;  I  don't  know  where  in  the  bridge 
this  piece  came  from. 

Q.  How  would  you  describe  it,  as  well  as  you  can?  How  did  you 
describe  it  just  now?  A.  As  a  T-shaped  piece,  —  shaped  like  the 
letter  T. 

Q.    Cast  iron?     A.    Cast  iron. 

Q.    What  did  you  find  in  regard  to  that?     A.   Well,  that 
small,  old  crack,  that  was  all ;  the  rest  was  a  new  break. 

Q.    How  long  and  in  what  part  of  the  T?     A.    I  don't  recoil 
considered  it,  when   I  saw  it,  of  no   importance   in   the   matter  what- 
ever, and  I  didn't  pay  any  attention  to  it.     It   was   a   piece   that  was 
broken  out  of  some  column  or  support  of  the  bridge.     I  don'' 
this  photograph  where  it  came  from.     I  didn't  think   it  of  enough  ac- 
count to  pay  any  attention  to  it. 

Q.    Is  that  the  only  place  where  you  saw   a  rusty  crack  or 
broken  off  and  rusted?      A.    That  is  the  only  one   I    think  of. 
out    there    yesterday   with    some   other   men.     We    looked    over    the 
bridge,  every  part  we  could  find,  and  we  could  not   find    a   piece   that 
Indicated  any  weakness   in   the    bridge,  but  every  f  inj  im- 

portance was  entirely  new.      There  were  some  little  places  in  - 
the  end  rods  where,  of  course,  it  would  break  in    tl  place, 

that  would  show  partial  weakness  in  the  welding.      lint  that  is 
universal   in    weldings.     A    perfectly  Bound    weld    Is    I 

rather  than  the  rule  in  all  blacksmith's  work.      It  hv 

a  weld  and  (ind  it  entirely  perfect ;  so  much  so,  that  in   -.me  kinds 
of  work  for  some  special  purposi  -  welding  la  discarded. 

n.    [lave  you  seen  anything  in  your  examination  so  fa:-  tl  i 
indicating  Berious  weakm  -  of  the  bridgi  J     A. 
seen  nothii 

<>.    No  old  fracture  in  any  part  whii 


80  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

portant  or  dangerous?  A.  No;  there  are  a  great  man}' parts  that 
can  only  be  seen  by  taking  out  the  pins  and  entirely  separating  Ihe 
members  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  So  far  as  the  special  construction  of  this  bridge  is  concerned, 
are  you  posted  in  regard  to  it?  A.  I  am  not;  I  am  not  a  bridge 
builder,  and  don't  pretend  to  know  much  about  that. 

Q.  How  about  that  journal  that  was  broken  ?  Did  it  show  any 
flaw?  A.  Well,  I  am  not  sure.  It  was  discolored  round  the  edge, 
and  I  am  in  doubt  whether  it  was  oil  or  what  it  was  ;  but  an  axle  of 
that  age  wouldn't  show  any  fracture  unless  it  received  some  severe 
blow.     There  was  discoloration  around  the  edge. 

Q.  How  far  in?  A.  Oh,  .perhaps  a  32d  of  an  inch;  but  at  the 
time  that  that  broke,  of  course,  it  was  covered  with  waste  and  oil,  and 
that  might  have  soiled  the  edge  and  not  farther  in  ;  I  call  it  oil,  and 
not  any  evidence  of  a  fracture. 

Q.  How  far  round  did  that  go?  A.  Well,  it  showed  that  dis- 
coloration all  the  way  round,  I  think,  or  nearly  all  the  way  round  ; 
I  am  not  sure.  I  didn't  at  the  time  call  it  a  fracture  ;  some  perhaps 
would. 

Q.    That  has  been  preserved,  has  it?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Have  you  the  rest  of  that  axle  of  which 
the  journal  is  broken  off?     A.   Yes  ;  it  is  at  the  shop  in  Roxbury. 

Q.  Is  the  wheel  attached  to  the  other  end  of  it  ?  A.  The  wheels 
are  on  the  axle. 

Q.  Is  the  wheel  on  the  other  end  of  the  axle  attached  to  it?  A. 
Both  wheels  are  on  the  axle.  That  is,  the  axle  broke  in  what  we  call 
the  journal,  outside  the  wheel,  and  both  wheels  are  on  the  large  part 
of  the  axle,  as  they  were.  This  piece  that  was  broken  off  is  about 
7|  inches  long. 

Q.   Outside  the  wheels?     A.    Outside  the  wheels. 

Q.  Then  the  breaking  of  that  journal  would  not  cause  the  axle  to 
fall  or  the  wheels  to  give  way  ?  A.  Well,  yes;  breaking  outside  of 
the  wheel  might  cause  a  very  serious  accident.  In  fact,  one  of  the 
worst  accidents  that  ever  happened  in  this  State  wTas  caused  by  the 
breaking  of  an  axle  outside  the  wheel  —  breaking  in  the  journal. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  mean  between  the  wheels,  or 
outside  of  the  wheels?  A.  I  mean  outside  of  the  wheels.  We  call 
the  axle  the  whole  piece  ;  the  journals  we  call  the  parts  that  turn 
down  on  which  a  bearing  is  made  —  that  is  the  technical  name  of  the 
parts. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Does  the  weight  of  a  car  come  down  on  the 
journals?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  weight  of  a  car  is  carried  directly  on  the 
journals,  and  the  breaking  of  a  journal  takes  all  the  weight  off  of 
the  wheel  on  that  side,  and  it  is  very  likely  to  leave  the  track. 


APPENDIX.  81 

Q.    That  is,  it  is  likely  to  jump?     A.    It  unloads  that  cud  - 
the  load  on  the  other  end  of  the  same  axle  will  lift  up  tin-  wheel  which 
is  unloaded,   and  allow  the  wheel  to  go  between  the  rails.     That  is 
very  sure  to  follow  a  broken  journal. 

Q.    With  the  car  standing  still,   the  load  on  the  remaining  journal 
will  lift  up  the  wheel  on  the  side  where   the  journal  is  broken  off,  and 
raise  it  more  or  less,   according  to  the  weight  of  the  portions 
axle  or  the  truck?     A.    If  the  journal  is  broken,  there  can  be  i 
on  that  wheel  next  to  which  it  is  broken. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Mr.  Richards,  do  you  suppose  that  the 
breaking  of  that  journal  could  have  been  the  original  cause  of  this 
accident?  A.  I  had  not  thought  of  that.  I  did  not  know  of  that 
until  this  morning.  I  saw  the  axle  as  I  came  over  from  the  shop,  and 
immediately  looked  up  the  records  to  see  from  which  car  it.  came,  and 
the  story  of  the  axle.     I  had  not  studied  it  in  that  direction. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Did  von  find  out  what  car  it  came  from? 
A.    Yes  ;  No.  87. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  thought  it  over,  or  do  you 
think  now  that  that  could  have  been  the  original  cause  of  the  acci- 
dent? A.  Well,  it  is  possible;  as  all  things  are  possible.  The 
breaking  of  any  one  of  the  parts  might  have  caused  the  accident. 
The  breaking  of  that  journal  would  cause  or  might  cause  a  very 
severe  shock  to  the  bridge.  The  breaking  of  that  journal  would  tend 
to  raise  the  wheel  next  to  the  journal  and  the  other  wheel  might  have 
left  the  rail. 

Q.  If  that  journal  broke  and  caused  a  shock  to  the  bridgi 
would  account  for  the  cars  that  passed  over  the  bridge  being  tec 
by  crushing  together?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  as  they  could,  on  that 
principle.  The  drawing  apart  afterwards  it  would  account  for ;  it 
wouldn't  account  for  the  telescoping.  I  don't  see  what  would.  No- 
body has  accounted  for  it ;  nobody  attempts  to  account  fur  it :  it  is  a 
mystery. 

Q.  You  do  not  see  any  explanation  of  it  by  referring  it  to  the 
breaking  of  that  journal,  do  you?  A.  Except  if  the  breaking  of  the 
journal  caused  the  wreck  of  the  bridge,  there  is  an  instant  of  time 
when  the  motion  of  the  bridge  downward  would  telescope  the  , 
throw  the  forward  platform  of  the  third  car  on  to  the  rear  platform  of 
the  second  car,  when  it  is  passing  a  certain  point  of  th  n 

between  the  bridge  and  the  abutment. 

(i.    Will  you  explain  that  more  fully?    We  want  to  getat  this  thing. 
Will  you  give  us  some  possible   position  of  the  cars  which 
account  for  this  accident  on  the  theory  that  it  started  with  the  break- 
ing of  that  journal?    A.   That  may  not  be  an  easj  thing  to  do.     Bat 


82  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

if  the  broken  journal  had  caused  the  bridge  to  settle,  forming  a  quick 
valley,  that  would  cause  a  telescoping  of  the  cars. 

Q.  Wait  a  moment.  That  would  necessitate  the  fifth  car  being  on 
the  bridge  at  the  time,  wouldn't  it?  A.  Well,  the  result  would  not 
follow  immediately.  A  bridge  does  not  go  down  in  an  instant;  it 
took  an  appreciable  time  for  the  bridge  to  go  down  ;  such  a  large 
bridge  cannot  be  moved  instantly. 

Q.  Where  would  you  have  the  journal  break  in  order  to  account  for 
the  accident  on  that  theoiy,  —  before  that  car  struck  the  bridge  or  when 
it  was  on  the  bridge?  A.  Well,  the  journal  might  break  half  a  mile 
before  there  is  any  effect  perceptible  from  it.  Journals  have  been 
found  broken  and  caused  a  serious  accident  immediately ;  others 
have  been  known  to  break  and  the  train  to  go  40  or  50  miles  without 
doing  any  harm  at  all.     It  is  impossible  to  say  what  might  happen. 

Q.  Explain  to  us  what  the  operation  was  or  might  have  been  in  this 
case  to  account  for  the  accident?  A.  Well,  if  it  was  caused  by  that 
journal  it  must  have  been  done  by  the  derailing  of  that  pair  of  wheels, 
—  the  wheel  nest  to  the  journal  lifting  up  and  the  wheel  on  the  other 
axle  falling  inside  the  rail  partly. 

Q.  And  at  what  point  before  the  car  reached  the  bridge  ?  A.  Well, 
wherever  it  might  be. 

Q.  Then  what  followed  next?  A.  Well,  if  it  went  on  to  the  bridge, 
or  if  that  happened  on  the  bridge,  it  would  cause  a  very  severe  shock 
to  the  bridge. 

Q.  What  followed  then?  A.  Then  the  tendency  would  be  to 
throw  the  bridge  to  one  side,  breaking  some  of  the  rods.  As  for  the 
form  which  the  shock  to  the  bridge  would  take,  it  is  impossible  even 
to  imagine. 

Q.  How  long  was  the  bridge?  A.  About  100  feet  in  length,  I 
believe. 

Q.  What  is  the  length  of  a  car?  Well,  the  body  of  a  car  runs 
from  50  to  60  feet,  or  from  45  to  60.  These  cars,  all  of  them,  were  not 
far  from  50  feet  in  their  bodies. 

Q.  Which  was  this,  the  front  truck  or  the  rear?  A.  I  do  not 
know  ;  I  have  no  means  of  knowing. 

Q.  When  that  car  got  fully  on  to  the  bridge  the  car  in  front  of  it 
was  just  going  off  the  bridge,  wasn't  it,  if  the  cars  are  50  feet  long  and 
the  bridge  was  100  feet  long?  A.  When  the  rear  end  of  the  rear  car 
was  entering  the  bridge,  of  course  the  forward  end  of  the  forward  car 
was  passing  off. 

Q.  And  if  some  of  the  trucks  of  the  fifth  car  were  off  of  the  track 
and  carried  the  bridge  down,  what  would  have  been  the  effect  upon 
the  front  three  cars  in  the  train?  A.  Well,  the  effect  would  have 
been  simply  pulling  apart  in  the  weakest  place,  I  should  say. 


APPENDIX.  83 

Q.  How  would  you  account,  then,  for  the  crushing  together  and 
telescoping  of  those  cars?  A.  I  have  not  been  able  to  account  for  it 
on  any  principle. 

Q.  On  your  theory  of  that  journal  being  the  original  cause  of  the 
accident,  can  you  account  for  the  crushing  together  of  the  front  three 
cars?  A.  No,  I  cannot;  and  I  fail  to  account  for  it  on  any  other 
theor}-. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Mr.  Richards,  do  you  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  inspection  of  bridges?  A.  Nothing  to  do  with  the  inspec- 
tion of  bridges. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  whole  of  the  bridge  structure  as  it  lay  on  the 
ground  yesterday  ?  A.  We  examined  every  part  of  it  that  we  could  get 
at ;  it  was  covered  a  good  deal  by  the  wreck  ;  most  of  it  was  removed 
last  night  and  some  this  morning.  We  examined  all  we  could 
get  at. 

Q.  Had  any  of  the  iron  pieces  of  the  bridge  been  removed  when 
you  arrived  there  to  make  your  inspection  ?  A.  I  don't  know  as  to 
that ;  there  is  quite  a  number  of  small  parts  missing ;  whether  re- 
moved from  the  bridge  or  not,  I  don't  know.  There  are  a  great 
man}1  curiosity  seekers  there. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  a  particular  part  of  that 
bridge  and  ask  you  whether  you  inspected  that  part.  The  bridge  is 
supported  by  a  truss  which  covers  a  span  from  shelf  to  shelf,  I  be- 
lieve ;  and  that  truss  consists  of  the  slanting  posts  which  make  an 
angle  with  the  compression  chords.  That  composes  the  whole  of  that 
truss,  does  it  not?     A.    The  two  posts  and  the  compression  chord. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  angle  there  is  what  is  called  a  joint  block,  I  believe  ? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  joint  block  is  the  joint  for  the  truss  posts  and  the  com- 
pression chord  or  the  upper  chord  of  the  truss.  That  is  so,  isn't  it? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  if  1  am  correctly  informed,  the  floor  beams  of  that  bridge 
are  suspended  from  hangers,  and  one  of  those  hangers  or  a  pair  of 
those  hangers  come  down  from  a  pin  in  that  joint  block.  That  is 
true,  is  it?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  the  floor  beam  stands  at  right  angles  to  the  pin  from 
which  the  hanger  is  suspended.     That  is  also  true?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  So  that  the  hanger  is  twisted  to  meet  the  angle  of  the  floor 
beam?  A.  I  believe  the  hangers  are  put  at  right  angles  with  each 
other,  twisted,  as  you  say,  a  quarter  of  a  turn. 

Q.  A  floor  beam  runs  through  the  lower  loop  of  the  hanger?  A. 
Well,  I  have  seen  this  bridge  a  great  many  times  when  it  was  there, 
but  to  state  the  construction  of  the  bridge  in  all  its  parts  I  do  not 
know  as  I  could,  but  only  the  members  which.  I  examined. 


8t  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  have  the  superlnten  lent  of  bridges  here, 
who  can  give  mure  exact  information  upon  that  point. 

Mr.  Williams.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  wish  to  put  a  question 
as  to  one  particular  hanger. 

Q.  Diil  you  examine  the  j  >int  block  on  the  northwest  corner  of  the 
biidge  yet>teid  y?  A.  I  looked  at  a  joint  block  in  which  the  hangers 
were  in  their  places,  but  broken.  Jt  was  down  so  near  the  ground 
thai  we  could  not  see  ;  all  wtc  could  do  was  to  feel  of  the  ends  of 
them  ;  we  didn't  see  the  ends  of  them. 

Q.  Was  that  the  north-west  corner?  A.  The  way  this  laid,  I 
hardly  know  to  which  side  it  belonged.  I  think  the  one  that  I  speak 
of  was  on  the  east  side  as  it  then  laid.  They  were  removing  the 
bridge  and  removing  the  cars.  I  could  not  locate  that  particular 
piece.  It  was  one  of  those  blocks  with  parts  of  the  hangers  in  them, 
but  it  laid  in  such  a  position  that  I  could  not  see  the  fractures,  and 
could  only  feel  of  them  with  my  fingers. 

(^.  There  are  only  four  of  those  blocks  on  the  two  trusses? 
A.  Two  on  each  truss. 

Q.  Couldn't  you  tell  whether  this  was  at  the  north  pier  or  at  the 
south  pier?  A.  This  laid  nearest  to  the  north  pier,  and  I  think  to 
the  east  of  the  centre  of  the  biidge,  as  it  lay  yesterday. 

Q.  That  hanger  was  fractured  or  broken,  wras  it  not?  A.  It  was 
broken  ;  the  fracture  I  could  not  see  —  couldn't  see  into  the  place. 

Q.    You  fe'.t  of  it?     A.    Felt  of  it. 

Q.    Could  you  tell  from  the  feeling  what  the  character  of  it  was, 
whether  it  was  an  old  fracture  or  not?     A.    Well,  it  is  pretty  hard  tc 
distinguish  colors  by  feeling,  and  that  is  wdiat  we  judge  by  mostl}-. 

Q.  That  hai  gs  in  the  joint  block?  A.  It  hangs  in  the  joint  block, 
so  that  it  can  never  be  seen  when  it  is  in  position. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  have  called  Mr.  Folsom's  attention  to  that  joint 
block,  and  that,  I  presume,  the  Board  deshes  to  have  preserved. 

The  Chaikmax.  I  have  seen  it  myself;  we  will  have  it  here  anc 
the  testimony  of  expert  authority  in  regard  to  it.  I  saw  it  the  morn 
ing  of  the  accident. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Who  examines  the  condition  of  the 
wheels  and  the  trucks  from  day  to  day  to  see  if  they  are  in  good  coi 
dition?  A.  There  is  a  gang  of  men  at  the  station  in  Boston  that  wt 
call  car  inspectors,  whose  special  business  it  is  to  examine  those  cars. 
Other  cars  are  brought  to  Koxbury  and  there  are  men  for  that  pur- 
pose there. 

Q.  How  often  is  each  car  inspected  as  to  the  condition  of  it 
trucks,  wheels  and  axles?  A.  The  cars  running  to  Providence  an 
.inspected  at  both  ei.ds  of  the  line.  The  cars  in  the  local  trains  an 
inspected  at  Bostun  only. 


APPENDIX.  85 

Q.    Every  trip  ?    A.   Those  running  on  the  local  trains  are  ins] 

at  Boston  only.     I  do  not  know  how  often,  but   I   think  abonl 
forty  miles  run. 

Q.  Not  every  trip,  then?  They  are  not  inspected  every  time  they 
come  to  Boston?     A.   I  do  not  know  whether  they  are  or  not.     I 

should  not  think  it  was  necessary.     In  a  groat  many  case 9  i* 
not  be  done. 

Q.    How  often   are  the  wheels  sounded   to   gee  if  they   art 
A.    Well,  whenever  the  cars  are   inspected   it  is  the  custom  to  sound 
the  wheels. 

Q.    And  only  when  they  are  inspected?     A.    No,  not  usuall; 
doesn't  amount  to  much,  —  the   hammering  of  the  wheels.     Tint  is 
like  the  bell  to  tell  us  that  dinner  is  ready,  but  it  doesn't  tell  us 
anything  about  the  condition   of  the   wheels. 

Q.  Docs  it  not  indicate  that  the  wheel  is  all  right?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
the  general  idea  is  to  let  people  know  there  is  somebody  round. 

Q.  Do  you  moan  to  say  that  if  a  wheel  is  not  all  right  it  will  ring 
true?  A.  "Wheels  are  made  in  so  many  different  ways  that  one  kind 
of  wheel  would  give  a  ring,  when  struck  a  blow,  like  a  bell  ;  and  on 
another  kind  of  wheel  there  would  be  no  ring. 

.  Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley  )  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  if  a  ear  in- 
spector is  rapping  around  underneath  a  car  and  conies  to  a  broken 
journal,  he  cannot  tell  by  the  sound  whether  it  is  broken  or  cracked 
or  whole?  A.  I  have  tried  to  make  that  out  for  a  great  many  years, 
and  I  wouldn't  give  a  snap  for  it. 

Q.    I  saw  a  car  the  other  day  where  there  was  a  journal   broken, 
and  that  was  the  only  way  they  found  it  out?     A.    It  depends  upon 
how  the  wheel  stands  on  the  rail,  on  the  formation  of  the  wheel,  and 
on  the  kind  of  spring  there  is   in   the  box,  and  so  on.     They 
connected  together  so  that  sometimes  you  can  tell  and  Bom  itim 
You  can  tell  by  the  sound  of  a  cast-iron  wheel,  a-  we  call  it,  the  dif- 
ference between  a   cracked  wheel    and  one   that   is   not   cracked,  pro- 
vided that  the  crack  is  open   so  that   the  parts  are  actually  . 
just  as  a  crack  in    a   cymbal  will   show   by  the   sound   of  it.     Some 
wheels  are  made  in  one  piece,  and  sane  in  seventy  or  eighty;   and 
those  that  are  made  with  seventy  or  eighty  pieces,  there  is  not  much 
ring  to  them. 

Q.    (By   Mr.  Putnam.)     What  else  is  done  by  way  of  inspection, 
besides  hammering  the  wheels  to  see  if  they  ring  true?     A.    Looking 
over    the    wheels,    looking    for    broken   wheels,    looking    for    l 
wheels. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  And  axles  also,  isn't  it?  A.  Well,  look- 
ing for  cracked  axles  to  a  certain  extent;  but  where  tiny  are  mo^t 
likely  to  break  nobody  can  sec;  no* mortal  can  tell. 


86  13USSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  You  wouldn't  recommend  dispensing  with  that  kind  of  cxami- 
nation,  would  you?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  would  keep  that  up  on  account  of 
watchfulness.  But  the  only  places  that  we  can  see  are  the  parts 
which  we  know  never  will  break. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  The  parts  that  are  liable  to  break  are 
hidden,  are  they?  A.  The  parts  that  are  liable  to  break  are  hidden. 
The  breakage  of  axles  years  ago  was  inside  of  the  wheel,  close  up  to 
the  wheel  and  slightly  inside  of  the  wheel.  Knowing  that,  our  people, 
for  a  long  number  of  years,  have  changed  their  axles  and  made  the 
axle  much  larger  in  there  ;  and  except  in  axles  of  the  old  st)  le  they 
rarely  ever  break.  There  are  but  few  roads  but  put  on  passenger 
cars  axles  that  at  that  place  weigh  fifty  per  cent,  at  least  stronger. 
That  has  removed  the  breaking  point  to  other  places. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Where  is  the  breaking  point  now? 
A.    It  is  either  the  breaking  of  the  journal  or  the  middle  of  the  axle. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  And  if  the  journal,  it  breaks  at  the  shoul- 
der, I  suppose?  A.  Yes;  a  journal  usually  breaks  out  close  to  the 
shouldei ,  as  near  the  wheel  as  the  length  to  the  wheel  will  admit  it ; 
usually  next  to  the  wheel. 

Q.  As  I  understand  you,  Mr.  Richards,  your  theory  of  the  probable 
beginning  of  this  accident  is,  that  something  brought  the  forward  vara 
to  a  check  ;  that  that  brought  the  rear  cars  down  upon  them  with  the 
full  force  of  the  speed  with  which  they  were  going  on  a  down  grade; 
that  that  created  a  telescoping  or  a  violent  shock,  and  that  that  shock 
carried  away  the  bridge?     A.    Well,  it  would  seem  so. 

Q.  Was  that  the  idea  that  you  intended  to  convey  in  your  first  tes- 
timony? A.  Well,  substantially  that;  that  there  was  a  checking  of 
the  train  forward  from  some  reason  or  other,  and  that  the  telescoping 
might  have  been  caused  by  the  rushing  on  of  the  rear  of  the  train, 
and  afterwaids  checked  behind  and  pulled  apart,  as  it  would  be  if  the 
forwaid  car  had  met  some  obstruction;  as,  for  instance,  something 
thrown  on  the  track,  checking  the  motion  of  the  train,  and  they  had 
gone  forwards,  and  afterwards  the  motion  of  the  train  had  been 
checked  from  the  rear ;  and  they  had  been  suddenly  pushed  together 
and  then  parted  —  those  that  were  left  on  the  top  of  the  bank. 

Q.  Could  that  check  of  the  forward  cars,  which  might  have  brought 
about  this  telescoping,  have  been  occasioned  by  any  breakage  in  any 
of  the  cars  that  you  could  imagine?  A.  Yes,  it  could  be  done  by  a 
breaking  down  of  a  brake  beam  or  anything  that  would  obstruct  the 
motion  of  the  train  that  went  under  the  wheels,  chuking  against  the 
wdieels  or  against  a  part  of  the  trucks. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  under  a  car  which  might  break  loose  and 
catch  in  one  of  those  sleepers,  for  instance,  on  the  bridge,  and  so 
cause  a  violent  checking  of  the  train?     A.    I  don't  know  as  there  is 


APPENDIX.  87 

anything.    Yes,  that  being-  an  open  bridge,  a  broken  brake 
would  do  that.     If  a  brake  beam  should  break  between  one  or  both  of 
those  hangers,  or  possibly  between  the  tics  of  the  bridge,  it 
cheek  the  train  ;  and  trains  are  derailed  as  often  from  the  breaking 
down  of  brake  beams  as  from  any  other  ordinary  cause. 

Q.  Then  if  a  brake  beam  in  the  second  or  third  car  had  dropped 
and  caught  between  the  open  sleepers  of  the  bridge,  that  would  have 
brought  about  the  sort  of  telescoping  that  yon  think  caused  the  acci- 
dent, would  it  not?     A.    Yes,  if  it  was  forward. 

Q.  I  take  it  that  the  breaking  of  an  axle  on  any  of  the  rear  cars 
would  not  have  brought  about  the  accident  in  that  way?  A.  I  don't 
see  how  it  would  with  such  a  long  distance  between. 

Q.  The  telescoping  has  got  to  be  accounted  for  by  some  Bodden 
cheeking  of  the  forward  end  of  the  train,  as  I  understand  it?  A.  It 
would. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Do  you  think  that  a  brake  beam  would 
check  the  forward  end  of  the  car  enough  to  telescope  it,  with  Miller 
platforms  on?  A.  Weil,  check  it  by  derailing  the  train.  I  do  not 
think  it  would  by  merely  striking  against  a  tie  ;  the  resistance  would 
be  so  great  that  it  would  break  it  off. 

Q.  It  would  have  to  be  derailed  first?  A.  I  think  so  ;  the  momen- 
tum would  not  be  enough  to  check  the  train  except  by  derailing. 

Q.  Anything  in  the  way  of  an  obstruction  on  the  trm-lc  would  have 
to  throw  the  car  off  of  the  track  before  it  would  telescope  it?  A.  I 
should  think  it  would. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Now.  Mr.  Richards,  if  it  was  doe 
cause  of  that  sort,  on  which  car  must  it  have  been.  —  the  first,  - 
or  third?     A.    If  that  telescoping  was  done   by  a  brake  beam  it  must 
have  been  on  the  first  or  second  car. 

Q.    Did  you  examine   the  Miller  platform  at  the  front  end  of  the 
second  car?     A.    I  cannot  say  that   I   did   particularly  examil 
end,  the  front  end  of  the  second  car  ;    I  did   the  front  end  of  the  (ii-t 
car. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  front  end  of  the  flrsl  car?  A. 
The  hook  was  pulled  round  to  the  west  and  bent ;  I  might  have  ex- 
amined the  other;  I  cannot  say  what  I  saw,  if  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  notice  the  fact  that  those  ears  were  crush*  d 
together    instead    of    pulled    apart:     A.    Well,  as  soon  1 

up  on  the  bank  — I  went  down,  as  I  told  you.  at  first,  and  came  up 
as  soon  as  I  got  through  there  — the  first  thing  that  attracted  my 
attention  was  the  telescoping  of  the  cars. 

Q.    If  the  cars  were  brought  to  a  stand-still  by  a  brake  bar 
ping,  what  car  do  you  think  it  must  have  been  on.  —  the  first  i 
Becond  car  or  the  third  car?     A.    Well,  as  applied  to  that  telescoping 


88  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

of  the  forward  end  of  the  third  car,  it  must  have  been  forward  of 
that,  and  it  must  have  been  the  first  or  second  car.  On  that  princi- 
ple, if  the  train  was  retarded  so  as  to  cause  that  telescoping,  it  must 
have  been  the  third  car. 

Q.  Now,  does  the  fact  that  the  front  car  was  off  the  track  and  that 
its  rear  truck  was  drawn  from  it  have  any  beating  to  show  whether 
it  was  that  car  or  the  second  car  that  the  brake  bar  had  dropped 
from?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  it  would.  That  would  depend 
upon  the  instant  of  time  that  the  bridge  swayed  to  its  side.  My 
opinion  is  that  the  first  car  never  landed  on  the  track,  but  went  off 
at  the  abutment ;  and  I  don't  see  how  it  could  change  its  position 
quick  enough  to  get  where  it  was.  if  it  ever  landed  on  the  rails.  But 
1  think  that  between  the  tender  and  the  forward  truck  of  the  rear  car 
was  the  instant  when  the  bridge  changed  its  position.  I  cannot  see 
any  other  theory  than  that  the  car  shot  to  the  right  and  severed  it 
from  the  tender. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  brake  bar  on  the  second  car  broke,  and  shifted  the 
position  of  the  bridge,  do  you  think  that  is  consistent  with  the  con- 
dition in  which  the  first  car  was  found,  with  the  trucks  off  on  the 
side  of  the  road?  A.  That  would  be  possible.  Supposing  the  re- 
sistance had  occurred  just  as  the  first  car  entered  the  bridge,  it  then 
had  100  feet  to  run,  and  the  bridge  might  change  its  posithn.  It 
would  require  but  a  slight  change  in  the  position  of  the  biidge  to 
throw  this  car  off.  It  is  possible  for  the  car  to  run  the  whole  hundred 
feet  and  the  biidge  shift,  so  that  when  it  arrived  on  solid  land  it 
passed  to  one  side. 

Q.  According  to  that  idea,  when  would  you  have  the  telescoping 
occur,  —  on  the  bridge  or  after  the  cars  left  the  bridge  ?  A.  I  should 
certainly  have  it  before  the  other  cars  went  down  ;  for  after  they  went 
down  there  wouldn't  have  been  any  momentum.  There  was  not 
weight  enough  for  the  car  to  telescope  with  no  force  ;  it  required  the 
force  of  the  train.  If  it  was  the  train  that  telescoped  the  cars,  it 
required  a  good  deal  of  weight. 

Q.  Do  you  see  how  the  accident  could  have  been  caused  by  a  brake 
bar  dropping?  A.  Well,  any  obstruction  that  was  on  the  track,  let 
it  be  whatever  it  was,  brake  beam  or  whatever  it  might  be  —  it  is  pos- 
sible for  the  same  accident  to  have  occurred. 

Q.  On  which  one  of  the  cars  must  that  brake  beam  have  been? 
A.  Well,  in  some  circumstances  I  might  imagine  it  might  be  on  the 
first,  second,  third,  fourth  or  fifth,  and  make  a  collision,  telescoping 
the  cars  together.  When  the  bridge  had  changed  its  position  and 
checked  the  motion,  of  the  train.—  as,  for  instance,  when  the  first  car 
went  over  the  bank,  —  the  momentum  of  the  train  behind  it,  if  the 


APPENDIX.  89 

bridge  had  settled  at  the  time,  would  be  on  the  increase,  still  poshing 
on. 

Q.   If  it  was  due  to  the  breaking  of  a  brake  beam,  how  conld  that 

affect  the  bridge  until  the  car  to  which  the  beam  was  attached  struck 
the  bridge?     A.    Oh,  it  couldn't,  of  course. 

Q.  Then  tin'  car  to,  which  the  brake  beam  was  attached  must  have 
been  on  the  bridge  before  the  bridge  got  a  jar  to  break  it  down,  must 
it  not?  A.  It  would  have  happened  immediately  after  the  car  was 
derailed,  let  it  lie  where  it  would. 

Q.  Well,  that  car  must  have  got  on  the  bridge  before  the  trouble 
would  happen,  must  it  not?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  about  that.  The 
car  was  evidently  off  the  bridge  before  it  was  derailed,  if  it  was 
derailed,  from  the  looks  of  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Is  it  your  theory.  Mr.  Richards,  that  the 
derailment  preceded  the  telescoping?  A.  I  should  say  it  must  have 
preceded  it. 

Q.  Your  idea  is,  then,  that  the  cause  which  produced  the  derail- 
ment is  the  responsible  cause,  and  that  the  derailment  was  what 
brought  the  sudden  check  upon  the  forward  end  of  the  train,  which 
caused  the  telescoping?     A.    That  is  it. 

Q.    Then,  in  my  question  before,  I  omitted  to  put  in  the  element  of 
derailment  in  order  to  state  your  theory  correctly,  did  I?     A.    V 
sir. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  now  understand,  your  idea  is  that  something  must 
have  caused  the  derailment  of  one  of  the  forward  cars,  and  that  the 
check  produced  by  that  derailment  brought  the  rear  of  the  train  down 
with  force  enough  to  telescope  the  two  cars,  and  that  that  gave  the 
bridge  such  a  shock  that  it  went.  Do  I  state  your  idea  correctly  ? 
A.    That  is  the  direction  in  which  I  should  look. 

Q.  If  that  is  the  case,  then  it  would  have  to  be  the  first  ear  that 
was  thrown  off  the  track  by  something  or  other,  would  it  not?  A. 
Not  necessarily. 

Q.  How  could  the  second  and  third  cars  have  been  thrown  together 
with  the  violence  with  which  they  seem  to  have  been,  if  the  BCCOnd 
car  was  derailed?  A.  I  should  say  the  fust  or  second  ;  it  must  have 
been  forward  of  the  point  of  telescoping. 

Q.    Forward  of  the  third  car?     A.    5Tes. 

Q.    Then  anything  that  would  have  thrown  the  first  and  second  ears 
Off  the  track  would  have  brought  about  :i  telescoping  which  would  ]■.-..■ 
caused  this  accident?     A.    I  should  say  so. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)      If  it   was   a   brake  beam  that  cause. 1  that 
accident,  it  would  certainly  have  left  its  mark  on  the  ties  of  the  bri 
would  it  not?     A.    If  the  wheel  landed  on  the  lies,  of  course  it  must 
have  left  a  mark.  [YERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

i>£FAft  IJViENT  OF  CIVIL  ENGINLEttlN 
KELEY.  CALIFOh 


90 


BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 


Q.  If  the  brake  beam  fell,  would  not  that  of  itself  leave  its  mark 
on  the  ties?  A.  Well,  a  brake  beam  would,  if  it  fell,  slide  along  on 
the  rail.  A  broken  brake  beam  sometimes  slides  some  distance  in 
front  of  the  wheel  without  doing  any  harm,  and  there  are  other  cases 
where  it  strikes  on  the  rail  and  shoots  a  little  one  side,  choking  one 
wheel  aud  leaving  the  other  free.  There  are  a  great  in  airy  directions 
which  it  might  take  in  falling. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Did  you  notice  where  the  rail  left  the 
abutment  and  went  on  to  the  bridge?     A.    I  did. 

Q.  Was  there  a  joint  at  the  place  where  the  bridge  struck  the 
abutment,  or  did  it  come  in  the  centre  of  the  rail?  A.  The  joint  was 
several  feet  on  the  long  side  ;  the  bridge  was  at  such  an  angle  that 
one  rail  lapped  further  on  the  embankment  and  the  abutment  than  the 
other.  I  noticed  that  the  one  on  the  east  side  was  pulled  out  of  the 
fastening  and  left  a  piece  of  the  rail  in  there.  The  rail  was  broken, 
leaving  a  short  piece  in  there. 

Q.  Where  broken?  A.  Well,  a  part  of  the  base  of  the  rail 
broken  out. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  More  in  the  nature  of  a  tear,  was  it? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  How  far  was  it  from  the  first  joint  of  the 
easterly  rail  to  the  edge  of  the  abutment  on  the  line  of  the  rail?  A. 
That  I  don't  know  ;  I  don't  know  the  angle.  There  were  two  on 
each  side,  60  feet  rails,  which  would  make  120  feet.  The  bridge,  I 
believe,  is  somewhere  from  100  to  105  feet  long,  so  that  on  one  side 
they  lapped  over  a  long  distance  ;  I  think  it  is  five  or  six  feet. 

Q.  You  are  speaking  of  the  east  side  or  the  west?  A.  Of  the 
east  side. 

Q.  That  is,  the  joint  would  be  more  than  five  or  six  feet  north  of 
the  abutment?     A.    I  think  it  was. 

Q.  And  how  on  the  west  rail?  A.  Well,  that,  of  course,  would 
be  less.  I  think  that  the  joint  was  in  the  centre  of  the  bridge,  and 
that  the  bridge  is  104  or  105  feet  long,  and  that  would  give  two  short 
laps,  on  account  of  the  angle  of  the  abutments,  the  bridge  being  104 
feet  long.  If  the  bridge  was  a  square  bridge,  there  would  be  eight 
feet  lap  to  each  rail. 

Q.  You  are  reasoning  this  out,  then,  not  speaking  from  anything 
you  observed?  A.  No,  I  am  only  speaking  from  memory.  My 
attention  was  attracted  by  the  broken  piece  of  rail,  and  not  by  the 
distance. 

Q.  How  do  you  account  for  the  first  car  having  been  thrown  on 
one  side  of  the  rail  and  the  truck  on  the  other ;  and  for  the  cars  that 
were  saved  being  on  the  right-hand  side,  the  east  side  of  the  track, 
and  those  that  went  over  being  on  the  other  side?     A.   Well,  really  I 


APPENDIX.  91 

don't  know.  Of  course  the  cars  that  went  down  went  down  in  the 
direction  in  which  the  bridge  swayed.  'I  should  Bay  the  bridge  top- 
pled over;  it  didn't  go  down  vertically,  it  is  not  at  all  likely,  but 
toppled  over,  and  the  northeast  corner  must  have  ;_:<  ne  down  Brat. 

Q.  The  northeast?  A.  The  northeast  corner  must  have 
down  first.  If  the  train  had  been  going  in  the  other  direction,  and 
the  bridge  had  failed,  going  up  hill,  the  cars  would  have  been  likely 
to  drop  on  the  other  side  from  the  angle  which  the  bridge  forms  with 
the  abutment ;  subject,  of  course,  to  other  conditions  which  might 
reverse  it. 

Q.  You  see  nothing  in  the  position  of  the  cars  to  indicate  a  Bway- 
ing  of  the  train  before  the  bridge  went  over?     A.    No,  I  don't. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  If  a  hanger  broke  on  the  bridge,  that 
would  let  down  the  floor  beam,  wouldn't  it,  where  that  banger  was 
suspended?  A.  Not  necessarily  ;  it  would  depend  upon  the  construc- 
tion of  the  bridge. 

Q.  I  am  referring  to  this  bridge?  A.  I  am  not  posted  enough  in 
regard  Lo  the  members  of  that  bridge  before  i   to  form  an 

opinion  ;  that  would  probably  have  to  be  referred  to  experts. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  If  the  front  cars  of  a  train  which  is 
provided  with  the  Miller  platform  arc  derailed  now,  do  the  cars 
telescope?     A.    Oh,  yes. 

Q.  Do  they  telescope  the  same  witli  that  platform  on  the  train  as 
they  did  before  its  introduction?  A.  No,  not  as  much.  A  Miller 
platform  is  supposed,  ordinarily,  to  keep  them  in  a  straight  line. 
That  depends  on  the  amount  of  force.  The  Miller  platforms  arc 
supposed  to  be  in  line  with  the  body  of  the  car,  and  the  cars  will 
stand  a  great  many  times  more  strain  and  a  much  more  violent  shock 
than  they  would  without  the  platform.  But  if  a  sufficient  B 
applied  they  must  telescope  ;  there  is  no  limit  to  the  power. 

Q.  My  question  is,  taking  the  case  of  a  train  of  nine  ears  going  at 
that  rate,  and  the  three  front  cars  being  derailed,  would  you  expect  BO 
much  of  a  telescoping  as  occurred  in  this  case  from  a  .simple  derail- 
ment? A.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  much  the  train  was  retarded.  If 
that  train  stopped  what  we  might  call  instantly,  there  was  no  Miller 
platform  and  no  car  ever  built  that  would  withstand  the  ahock  ;  and 
it  was  the  amount  of  retarding,  together  with  the  velocity,  which 
would  give  the  force. 

Q.    Would  you   think    from    the  condition    of  the   track   there,   the 
ground  about  it  and  the  condition  of  the  sleepers,  that  the  train  was 
retarded  by   simple  derailment,  sutliciently   suddenly    to  account    for 
that    telescoping?     A.    I    could    not    say;     I   could    not    exp 
opinion  on  it. 

Q.    Would  it  not  be  more  reasonable  to  Buppose  that  that  tel< 


92  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

ing  was  occasioned  when  portions  of  that  car,  the  truck  or  otherwise, 
struck  flat  against  the  abutment  of  the  bridge  and  made  a  sudden 
stop?     A.    Well,  it  might  have  been  so. 

Q.  And  wouldn't  striking  against  the  abutment  of  that  bridge 
account  for  the  trucks  being  thrown  off  of  the  cars?  A.  It  would,  of 
that  car,  if  the  rails  were  not  under  it  at  the  time.  It  is  a  question  of 
the  instant  of  •time  when  the  wheels  left  their  position.  If  the  car 
went  off  the  rails  on  account  of  the  trucks  striking  against  the  abut- 
ment, the  question  arises,  what  was  the  car  resting  on  when  the  bridge 
went  down,  and  what  held  up  the  other  car? 

Q.  The  bridge  didn't  go  down  all  at  once,  you  say?  A.  No. 
Then,  again,  that  third  car  being  on  top  of  the  second,  it  seems  to 
me  on  that  principle  it  ought  to  have  been  below  instead  of  on  top  ; 
the  breast  beam  of  the  platform  was  clear  in  to  the  other  car.  Now, 
if  that  was  falling  in  that  way,  that  platform  should  have  gone  to  the 
bottom  and  the  other  one  to  the  top  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they 
were  off  until  the  rear  end  of  the  second  car  had  returned  to  its  hori- 
zontal position,  and  the  shock  came  on  and  the  force  continued,  then 
that  would  have  carried  the  breast  beam,  as  we  term  it,  of  the  third 
car  over  on  top  of  the  other. 

Q.  If  the  road-bed  of  the  bridge  had  fallen  and  dropped  say  six 
inches  at  the  time  when  the  first  car  went  over  it,  when  the  second 
truck  of  the  first  car  went  over  it,  that  truck  would  have  then  come 
up  against  the  abutment  and  would  have  had  a  severe  jar,  and  might 
have  been  thrown  out  of  place,  as  it  was.  The  trucks  of  the  next 
car  also  came  against  the  abutment,  and  the}'  were  thrown  back. 
The  third  car.  as  you  say,  didn't  have  any  trucks  at  all?     A.    No. 

Q.  They  must  have  been  cleaned  off  by  the  abutment?  A.  They 
were  no  doubt  sheered  off  by  the  abutment.  There  is  no  doubt  they 
went  entirely  to  the  abutment  and  there  were  dropped.  I  tried  to 
prove  it  from  the  condition  of  the  wreck,  but  things  were  so  mixed  up 
I  could  not  demonstrate  it.  The  natural  supposition  would  be  that 
they  would  reach  the  abutment  and  then  be  sheered  off. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Do  you  think  you  can  prove  it  by  further 
examination?  A.  No.;  it  would  be  a  question  of  the  exact  spot 
where  those  trucks  were  found.  They  have  got  that  stuff  all  up  now, 
and  I  doubt  whether  anybody  but  myself  and  one  other  man  could 
even  recognize  the  trucks,  as  to  which  car  they  belonged  to ;  and  he 
probably  didn't  observe  it  (and  if  I  couldn't  he  couldn't).  We  have 
several  kinds  of  trucks,  an  old  pattern  and  a  new  pattern  ;  and  we 
recognize  one  truck  from  another  very  much  as  you  will  one  person 
from  another,  —  by  their  faces.  There  are  some  peculiar  features  about 
them.  In  some  cases  nothing  more  than  that.  I  recognized  that 
truck  by  the  fact  that  it  had  some  wheels  on  it  which  are  under  only 


APPENDIX. 

two  other  cars,  ami  those  were  not  in  this  wreck.  That  is  the  only 
way  I  could  have  told  that  that  broken  axle  belonged  to  87.  It  was 
' the  only  car  that  was  in  the  wreck  that  had  that  particular  wheel. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Richards,  doesn't  the  fact  thai  those  ears 
were  teloscoped  after  they  got  over  the  bridge  show  that  the  accident 
was  a  train  accident  rather  than  a  bridge  accident?  What  do  you 
think  ?  A.  I  cannot  help  thinking  so.  I  think  that  the  falling  of  the 
bridge  was  the  result  and  not  the  cause,  but  how  to  work  that  out  I 
can't  say.  There  are  so  many  thousand  ways,  —  there  are  hundreds 
and  hundreds  of  pieces  about  a  train  which  might  cause  it.  All  that 
it  requires  is  derailment.  The  question  is,  whether  that  train  was 
dei ailed  anywhere,  no  matter  what  the  cause  might  be.  We  find 
pieces  of  flanges  broken  off;  we  find  crooked  axles;  we  find  broken 
joists  ;  but  this  one  broken  journal  is  all  I  have  seen.  Any  one  of 
them  might  be  a  cause  or  might  be  a  result. 

Q.    Would  not  the  falling  down  into  that  street  break  the   flanges, 
journals,  etc.     A.    Oh,  yes  ;  certainly.     1  have  no  doubt  the  flai 
were  bioken  b}- falling  into  the  street.     That  is,  those  I  have  seen 
were  small  fractures  ;  small  pieces  broken  from  the  outer  edge. 

Q.  But  this  broken  journal  which  you  found  was  not  down  in  the 
street,  but  was  up  on  the  bank.  Am  I  correct?  A.  I  really  don't 
know  where  that  was  landed  originally.  I  understood  it  was  taken 
from  the  base  of  the  north  abutment  by  one  party  ;  but  whether 
somebody  else  had  picked  it  up  and  laid  it  there  I  don't  know.  I 
don't  know  what  its  original  position  was. 

Q.  That  broken  journal  was  on  car  87?  A.  Cars?;  and  a  man 
told  me  out  there  yesterday  that  he  saw  that  journal  lying  in  a  cer- 
tain place,  and  pointed  to  it.  I  asked  him  if  it  had  been  moved  there, 
and  he  said  he  didn't  know.  There  was  snow  on  the  ground,  and 
there  were  tracks  of  feet  around  there.  He  didn't  know  whether  it 
was  landed  in  that  place  or  not. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevkns.)  That  car  was  near  the  west  abutment, 
was  it  not,  —  the  fifth  car?  A.  I  couldn't  say.  The  place  was  BO  full 
of  cars  there  wasn't  much  difference  in  distance  ;  the  tail  end  of  the 
train,  as  we  call  it,  was  nearer  to  the  west  abutment  generally.  The 
general  direction  of  the  forward  end  of  the  train  was  nearest  the  east 
abutment. 

Q.    You  would  hardly  expect  to  find  the  head  of  a  car?     A 
sir.     The  place  pointed  out  was  about  half  a  car  length  back  of  the 
forward  end  of  the  car. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Supposing  this  is  the  second  car  in  the 
train.     It  is  on  the  bridge.     This  is  the  abutment  here.     The  b 
has  sunk  away  some  half  a  foot  or  a  foot.      It  comes  to  this  point,  and 
the  front  truck  of  the  second  car  strikes  the  abutment.     It  rcceivi 


94  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

great  shock,  of  course.  The  front  truck  is  thrown  back  and  the  car 
would  be  tipped  up  in  that  position,  and  it  is  thrown  up  on  to  the 
embankment,  going  up  so.  At  the  same  time  that  it  receives  this 
severe  shock,  which  throws  this  front  truck  back,  and  of  course  gives 
it  a  sudden  stop,  the  third  car  coming  on  finds  this  end  of  the  car 
somewhat  depressed  ;  and  the  Miller  platform  of  the  third  car,  there- 
fore, is  naturally  up  above  the  Miller  platform  of  the  second  car  and 
goes  on  top  of  it.  And  then,  at  that  time,  when  this  sudden  stop 
comes,  it  gets  that  telescoping.  Then  this  car  is  pushed  over  with 
its  two  trucks  under  here,  and  the  third  car  comes  along  and  strikes 
the  abutment  with  its  trucks,  and  the  trucks  are  thrown  off  and  the 
car  slips  on  to  the  embankment  on  its  floor.  Might  that  be?  A. 
Yes,  certainly  it  could. 

Q.  How  are  j-our  instructions  in  regard  to  the  inspection  of  cars? 
You  have  charge  of  that  department,  have  you  not?  A.  Yes,  I  have 
charge  of  those  that  come  to  Roxbnry.  We  have  a  chief  inspector 
who  has  charge  of  the  inspection  of  the  cars  in  Boston. 

Q.  You  are  the  head  of  the  department,  are  you  not?  A.  I  am 
the  head  of  the  department. 

Q.  What  are  your  instructions  in  regard  to  the  examination  of  cars 
on  the  suburban  service?  A.  There  are  no  written  or  printed  in- 
structions. This  thing  has  grown  up  and  taken  care  of  itself.  As  I 
said  before,  the  through  trains  are  inspected  at  each  end  and  the 
others  are  inspected,  as  I  understand  it,  about  once  every  forty  miles. 

Q.  Who  would  know  about  that?  A.  Edward  Lang,  chief  in- 
spector ;  he  has  charge  of  those  inspections. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Is  he  responsible  for  the  condition  of  the 
cars?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  those  cars  that  don't  come  to  the  shop  he  is  re- 
sponsible for ;  makes  his  own  rules  in  regard  to  them. 

Adjourned  to  Thursday  at  10.30. 


APPENDIX. 


THIRD     DAY. 

Boston,  March  17,  It 

The  Board  met  at  10.30. 

Testimony  of  Edward   Lam;. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence?  A.  14  St.  .lames 
Street,  Boston  Highlands. 

Q.  What  is  your  age?  A.  My  ago  is  62.  I  was  born  on  the  Sd 
of  January,  1825. 

Q.  What  is  your  connection  with  the  Boston  &  Providence  Hail- 
road?     A.    Chief  car  inspector. 

Q.    How  long  have  you  been  so?     A.    I   went  from  the  shops  in 
Roxbury  the  1st  day  of  February,  1853,  to  Boston,  for  the  pur] 
inspecting  cars. 

Q.    You  have  been  an  inspector  since  1853?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  chief  inspector  for  what  portion  of  the  time?  A.  Well, 
perhaps  that  time.  I  was  put  in  charge.  At  that  time  we  bad  nol  BO 
many  cars  nor  men  as  we  have  now. 

Q.  Prior  to  1853  what  were  you?  A.  Car  builder;  building  and 
repairing  ears  at  the  shops  in  Roxbury. 

Q.  For  what  length  of  time?  A.  I  went  to  work  for  the  company 
the  18th  of  October,  1847. 

Q.    As  a  car  builder  then?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    What  had  you   done  previous  to  that?     A.    Carpenterii  I 

served  my  time  at  carpentering  for  four  years. 

Q.    Will  you  describe  fully  the  regulations  for  the  inspection  i 
on  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad,  so  far,  at  least,  as  relates  to  the 
cars  of  the  Dedham  branch?     A.    Well,  I  have  two  men  specially 
appointed  to  inspect  those  cars  when  they  get  in,  every  trip,  under  my 
supervision. 

<».    At  Boston?     A.    At  Boston. 

<,>.  In  the  Boston  depot?  A.  In  the  Boston  depot,  or  their  ear- 
house,  or  wherever  the  cars  may  happen  to  be  placed  outside. 

Q.    Do  they  do  it  every  time?     A.    Yes,  Bir, 

Q.  What  is  the  nature  of  their  inspection ?  A.  They  go  round  the 
cars  and  examine  them  underneath  and  outside. 

Q.    What  portion  of  the  car  do  they  examine?     A.    All  parts  of  the 
running  work.      I  should  say  three  men.      I  have  one  man  to  lo 
for  the  glass  and  what  little  things  may  be  out  of  order  inside  of  the 
car,  —  seats  and  ever)  thing  of  that  kind. 


96  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Now,  describe  more  fully  what  their  method  of  examination  is 
with  regard  to  the  outside  of  the  car.  What  do  the}'  do?  A.  They 
examine  all  the  wheels,  and  look  to  see  if  they  can  find  any  nuts  loose, 
or  wheels  cracked,  bad  wheels,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.    How  do  they  do  that?     A.    They  do  that  by  looking  at  them. 

Q.    By  looking  at  the  wheel?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  striking  it  at  all?  A.  Sometimes  they  strike  it,  but  that  is 
not  an  infallible  rule  for  a  broken  wheel.  It  is  according  to  the  posi- 
tion of  the  wheel.  If  it  should  have  a  shoe  on  it,  it  won't  ring.  We 
don't  consider  that  a  safe  rule.  A  wheel  should  be  examined  by  the 
e}e,  if  it  can  be  seen.  If  it  is  in  a  dark  place,  we  have  torches  made 
especially  for  the  purpose,  with  a  long  handle,  which  we  can  put  right 
up  to  the  wheel  and  see  if  it  is  cracked  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  How  about  the  axle?  A.  An  axle  is  something  that  no  man 
can  tell  about.  It  is  liable  to  break  in  places  where  it  can't  be  seen. 
The  axle  lies  inside  of  a  box  or  housing,  and  it  cannot  be  seen  there. 
A  wheel  may  be  worn  out,  and  it  may  ring,  may  be  unsound,  and  still 
it  may  ring  under  the  stroke  of  a  hammer. 

Q.  The  inspectors  examine  the  wheels,  then,  onby,  do  they? 
A.  They  examine  the  wheels  and  all  parts,  brakes  and  brake-guards 
and  everything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  How  do  they  examine  the  brakes?  Wrhat  are  your  instructions 
in  regard  to  that?  A.  Well,  it  is  to  examine  them,  look  at  them,  see 
if  there  is  anything  loose  about  them,  see  if  the  straps  are  kept  in 
their  places. 

Q.  Have  you  any  written  or  printed  instructions  in  regard  to  the 
examination  of  cars?     A.    No  particular  instructions. 

Q.  Any  written  or  printed  instructions,  I  say  ?  A.  I  think  I  have 
a  letter  written  by  the  superintendent,  telling  me  to  keep  the  cars 
thoroughly  inspected  ;  and  I  have  full  power  to  take  any  car  off  of  the 
train  that  I  think  is  unsafe,  and  send  it  to  have  it  repaired,  if  I  cannot 
do  it  ni)  self,  —  like  wheels  being  taken  out  or  anything  of  that  kind 
that  is  wore  off.  As  far  as  an  axle  is  concerned,  —  and  by  that  I 
mean  the  whole  of  the  axle,  journal  and  all, — you  can't  tell  anything 
about  it. 

Q.   Well,  you  can  tell  about  what  parts  are  in  sight?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  examination  do  they  make  of  the  parts  that  are  in  sight? 
A.  If  it  is  where  we  cannot  see  it  very  plainly,  we  hold  this  light 
along  there  to  see  if  it  is  perfect. 

Q.    Do  you  mean  by  that  at  every  inspection?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  are  the  names  of  your  inspectors  who  make  this  inspec- 
tion? A.  Joseph  II.  Leishman,  Thomas  Lynch  and  Charles  W.  Tol 
man.  Mr.  Frank  W.  Atkinson  is  the  inspector  for  the  inside  of  the 
passenger  cars. 


APPENDIX. 

Q.   On  these  Dedham  trains,  do  they  make  an  insp 
time  a  car  comes  into  the  depol  ?     A.    i"es,  -ir. 
Q.    Do  you  know  what  the  condition  of  the  >n  this  train? 

A.    I  know  they  were  as  good  as  any  oars  we  have  on  the  road. 

<v>.  Do  you  know  what  the  cumbers  of  the  cars  on  thi 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  give  me  the  cumbers,  please?  A.  Th 
the  train  was  No.  1  ;  that  was  ;t  combination  and  sm 
there  was  so.  si.  82,  87,  54,  52,  28  and  1^. 

Q.  Is  that  the  order  in  which  they  were?  A.  I  n'l  Bay.  I  know 
that  this  combination  smoker  was  tin-  last  car  of  th.'  train  coming  to 
Boston. 

Q.    [t  would  be  the  first  going  out?     A.   Certainly. 

Q.    You  are  not  sure  about   the  arrangement  of  the  othei 
A.    I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.    What  was  the  condition  of  those  cars,  beginning  with  tl 
car.  combination  No.  1.  he  lure  the  accident?     A.    Well,  it  wac 
good  order  as  any  car  we  have  got  on  the  road.     It  was  built  in  the 
ops  in  Roxbury. 

Q.  How  long  ago?  A.  That  I  couldn't  say;  perhaps  between 
fifteen  and  twenty  years  -ago. 

Q.  What  has  been  done  to  it  since?  A.  Well,  it  was  kept  in  run- 
ning order. 

Q.  When  was  it  last  thoroughly  repaired?  A.  It  i>  generally 
taken  into  the  shop  once  a  year  lor  any  repairs,  to  he  painted  ami 
varnished  or  anything  that  may  want  to  he  done  to  it. 

Q.    When  was  this  ear  last  taken  into   the   shop?      A.     i 

<v>.  You  have  a  record  of  it.  haven't  yon.?  A  \  ■.  sir,  we  have 
no  record  of  the  repairs  on  it.     The  records  of  thos<  cept  at 

Roxbury ;   it    is  separate  from  Boston.     Thai     -  neral  repair 

shop  there. 

By    Mr.   Kinsley.)     A   record  is  kept   there,    is   it?      A     I 
say. 
Mr  Putnam.     The  ear  record,  whatever  it   is,  will  be  at  tl 
poeal  of  the  Commission.     I  think  it  can  be  procured  at  short 
if  the  Commission  would  like  it. 

Q.    Have  you  had  any  report  from  your  car  inspectors  that 
these  cars  were  in  any  waj  defective,at  anytime  lately  f     A.    N 
Q.    Have  you  had  any  record  that  they  were  defective  in  th< 
ain  record  of  anj  defect  which  has  col  been  cure 
sir. 

By    Mr.  Williams.)     When  is  this  train  that  comes  h 
Dedham  at  seven  o'clock  las!  examined?     v.    I  think  th< 

in,  —  I  am  not  certain  of  the  time  of  the   arrival  of  I 


98  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

ton,  but  I  think  it  is  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  fifteen  min- 
utes past  five.  The  train  is  examined  then,  and  it  goes  out  again  at 
ten  minutes  past  six.     Between  that  time  it  is  examined  last. 

Q.  That  is,  in  the  afternoon  of  the  previous  da}-?  A.  The  after- 
noon of  the  previous  day. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  the  seven  o'clock  train  from  Dedham  in 
the  morning  is  made  up  of  the  same,  cars  that  you  use  at  6.10  in  the 
evening?  A.  I  don't  know  how  it  is  made  up;  I  don't  know  any- 
thing about  that. 

Q.  Are  they  the  same  cars?  A.  Saturday  night  I  think  they  are. 
I  am  not  certain  about  the  same  cars  going  out  at  ten  minutes  past 
six. 

Q.  Then,  how  can  you  answer  that  this  train  was  last  examined 
the. afternoon  previous  to  the  accident?  A.  We  take  on  two  cars 
Saturday  night  in  addition  to  the  regular  cars  on  the  6.10  train. 
They  are  taken  from  the  Providence  train,  and  they  are  always  exam- 
ined after  they  come  in  on  that  train  before  the}-  are  put  on  the  ten 
minutes  past  six  train. 

Q.  That  is  by  reason  of  the  greater  travel  to  which  the  cars  are 
put?     A.    I  don't  know  ;  I  think  it  is  on  account  of  Sunday  trains. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  when  the  cars  that  con- 
stituted that  train  Monday  morning  were  last  examined?  A.  I 
stated  my  own  knowledge. 

Q.    Those  particular  cars?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  they  were  examined  Saturday  evening? 
A.  Because  I  have  my  men  appointed,  and  see  that  they  do  their 
business. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  examined?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  always  see 
them  examined. 

Q.  You  do  not  speak,  then,  of  your  own  knowledge?  A.  I  speak 
in  general.     I  have  supervision  of  the  inspection. 

Q.    Are  your  assistants  here?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  No  examination  is  made,  as  far  as  you  know,  between  that 
time  and  the  time  when  the  train  comes  back  to  Boston  Monday 
morning?     A.    I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  cars  are  kept  over  Sunday  ?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  don't  know  whether  they  are  exam- 
ined at  Dedham  or  not,  I  suppose?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  know  nothing  of 
that.     What  I  am  speaking  of  is  the  Boston  station. 

Q.  These  men  whom  you  employ  have  nothing  else  to  do  but  to 
inspect  the  cars,  have  they?     A.    Nothing  but  the  inspection. 

Q.  That  is  their  entire  business?  A.  That  is  their  entire  business, 
sir. 


APPENDIX.  99 

Q.    Are  they  mechanics?     A.   They  are  mechanics,  the   Bai 
any  inspectors  arc;  they  have  to  learn  the  business  of  insp 
No  matter  what  trade  they  learned  originally,  the}  have  got   to  learn 
that  gradually. 

Q.   They  are  not  necessarily  taken  from  the  car-sho] 
sir. 

Q.    You  yourself  were  a  trained  car  builder?     a.    'i  rs,  ^ir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  those  can 
were  used  on  Sunday?      A.     I  do  not. 

Q.  Are  there  Sunday  trains  for  Bo8ton  from  Dedham?  A.  ^  ■  -. 
sir;   there  is  a  Sunday  train  from  Boston  to  Dedham. 

Q.  From  Dedham  to  Boston?  A.  The  train  leaves  Boston  and 
goes  to  Dedham.  I  am  not  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  running  of 
the  trains,  we  have  so  many  trains. 

Q.  Do  your  inspectors  examine  the  ears  on  Sunday-  as  well  as 
other  days?  A.  Yes,  sir:  we  have  a  man  there  on  purpose  to  exam- 
ine those  cars. 

Q.    One  man?     A.    One  man. 

Q.  On  Sunday?  A.  On  Sunday.  He  lias  plenty  of  time,  and  he 
has  to  do  it  thoroughly. 

Q.    Which  one  is  that?      A.    That  is  Mr.  Tolman. 

(.,).  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Who  are  the  conductors  on  the  6.10 
train,  or  who  were  they  last  Saturday?  A.  Well,  I  am  not  familiar 
with  all  the  conductors.  Mr.  Alden  was  one  of  the  regular  men,  ami 
Mr.  Tilden. 

Q.  On  thi'  6.10  tram?  A.  I  can't  aay  going  out.  All  I  know  i>, 
that  is  Mr.  Alden's  train  ;   he  is  the  only  man    I  can 

Testimony  of  <  rEORGE  I- .  Folsom. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     V residence?     A.    Roxbury. 

Q.    Your  age  ?     A.    Fifty-six. 

Q.    What  is  your  connection  with  the  Boston  &   Provideno 
road?      A.    1  have  had  the  care  of  the  bridges  for  the  last  twei 
:uee   1861. 

<>.    What  is  the  title  of  your  office  ?     A.    "  Superintendent  o 
Btruction"  is  put  on  to  my  letters.     I  have  the  care  of  the  ci 
work,  and  so  on.  for  the  stations. 

Q.    state  fully  what  your  duties  ar<  .     A.    I  :  ok  after  the  b 

hat  they  are  in  a  safe  c lition,  and  do  anj  repairs  that  are 

required  on  the  buildings.     That  i>  my  general  bus 

Q.    Do  you  have  any  thing  to  do  except  the  care  ol     irid  esi      \.    1 
eneral  repairs  of  buildings. 

Q.  Anything  with  the  road-bed?  A.  Nothing  further  than  the 
approaches  to  bridges. 


100  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  As  far  as  they  are  connected  with  the  bridges?  A.  As  far  as 
the  road-bed  is  connected  with  the  bridges;  yes.  The  trackmen 
have  more  or  less  to  do  with  the  track  in  my  absence.  I  know  noth- 
ing about  what  they  do,  frequently,  as  far  as  repairing  is  concerned ; 
but  when  there  are  general  repairs  of  the  bridges,  it  is  done  under  my 
instruction. 

Q.   The  bridges, then,  are  under  your  care,  are  they  not?     A.    Yes, 

sir. 

Q.  And  how  often  do  you  examine  them?  What  is  your  system  in 
regard  to  performing  your  duties  as  superintendent  of  bridges?  A. 
Every  fall  and  spring  I  make  a  general  examination  of  them.  Occa- 
sionally, whenever  I  am  in  the  vicinity,  I  generally  make  an  inspection 
of  them,  if  I  have  an  opportunity. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  the  nature  of  your  examination  in  the  fall  and 
spring?  A.  I  examine  every  part  of  them  as  closely  and  carefully 
as  I  know  how,  and  can. 

Q.  State  your  method,  whether  you  do  it  alone,  what  tests  you 
apply,  and  generally  what  your  method  is.  A.  By  sight  and  sound. 
Q.  Well,  explain  more  fully,  Mr.  Folsom,  please,  what  your 
method  is.  A.  Well,  I  examine  every  point  in  the  bridge,  and  see 
if  there  is  any  defect  that  I  can  see,  and  sound  any  of  the  connection 
rods  in  it  to  see  if  they  are  sound. 

Q.  Do  you  do  it  alone?  A.  I  do  the  principal  part  of  it  alone.  I 
go  over  every  point  nryself ;  but  I  have  others  go  over  with  me,  and 
men  that  assist  me. 

Q.  What  was  the  last  examination  that  you  made  of  the  Bussey 
Farm  Bridge?  A.  It  was  the  middle  of  last  month,  I  believe;  I 
think  the  15th,  if  I  recollect  right. 

Q.  Describe  exactly  what  you  did  then,  fully.  A.  I  went  to  the 
bridge  and  examined  it  all  over  to  see  if  I  could  see  any  defect  any- 
wheres about  it.  There  are  more  or  less  nuts  taken  from  the  bridge  by 
the  boys  frequently  stealing  them  ;  but  for  the  last  year  or  so  I  don't 
remember  of  a  nut  being  taken  off  from  the  bridge. 

Q.  Go  on,  and  tell  us  exactly  what  you  did,  please,  when  you  went 
out  there  in  February  and  examined  the  bridge.  A.  I  looked  at 
every  point  in  connection  with  the  bridge  as  carefully  as  I  could  by 
sight. 

Q.  WThat  points  did  you  look  at  especially  ^examining  the  bridge? 
A.    All  the  particular  points  where  the  connections  are. 

Q.  Well,  please  explain,  from  this  photograph  of  the  bridge,  what 
points  you  consider  dangerous  points  and  the  ones  of  which  you  make 
a  careful  examination.  A.  No  one  in  particular;  I  examine  one  as 
well  as  the  other,  every  part  of  it,  all  through,  to  see  that  its  attach- 
ments to  the  abutments  are  all  secure,  and  see  that  there  is  nothing 


APPENDIX.  101 

out  of  the  way  in  any  of  the  connections  in   through  h< 
possibly  be  out  of  the  way.     I  aever  have  found  one  of  them  out, 
farther  than  I'found  Bome  of  these  nuts  taken  off  from  the  end       \  I 
those  I  have  replaced  with  other  nuts  at  differenl  times. 

( t.    [f  you  were  going  out  there  to  examine  thai  bridge,  what  would 
you  '1"?     A.    I   generally  gel  on  the  bridge  and  i  on  t ho 

base-chord  to  the  south  panel   bent,   from  there  •■ 
from  the  centre  to  the   north   panel  bent,   always  on  the  lower 
and  then. to  the  foot  of  the  north  main  post.     Then  l  >verthe 

same  ground,  and  get  on  the  bridge,  and  go  down  inside  of  thi 
work,  and  work  my  way  along,  and  examine  each  point        ! 
it,  all  the  way  through,  and  see  if  lean  find  any  defeel   anywheres 
about  it. 

Q.    Going  along  under  the  track?     A.    Working  along  under  the 
track.     I  get  down  inside.     There  is  a  net-work  tie  re,  bo  that  I  have 
to  crawl    from   one   post    to   another:     I  can't    describe  it ;    the. 
great  many  rods  in  it. 

Q.    Then  what  do  you  dor      A.     Then  I  go  above  and  examine  tin- 
track . 

Q.    You  come  back  from  the   north  to  the  30uth  end  of  the  I 
and  crawl  through  here  under  the  track,  and  then  what  do  you  do? 
A.    1   get  up  on  to  the  bridge,  wherever  I  happen  to  end  mj 
inspection. 

Q.   Then  what  do  you  do?     A.   Thenlexamine  thetopof  thel 
to  see  if  the  track  is  in  good  condition  : 

tie-rods  that   hold  tin-  bridge  to  the   abutmi  I   their  con- 

nections are  secure.     Then  |  gel  down  on  the  south  end  of  tl 
erly  abutment,  and  go  through  towards  the  south,  go  from  the  north 
to  the  south,  through  that  truss,  examining  each  rod  there. 

Q.    (  By  Mr.  Putn  \m.  )      You   are    speak  it 
tin--?     A.    Yes.     That  I    did  not   go  through  tb< 
there  ;    I  did  not  go  through  that  one  ;    but,  if  I  recollect  right,  I 
down  below  to  sec  thai  the  nuts  on  tie-  bottom  wen 
examined  the  top  by  Bight,  by  walking  on  the  track. 

\ikman.)     What    else   did   you   do?     A.    I 
remember  of  anything  else  l>ut   making  that   ■ 
that  way. 

Q,    [g  this  a  bridge  of  peculiar  construction  ?     A 

Q.    What  is  its  peculiarity  ?     A.    Man     pi< 

Q.    Well,  explain  wherein  the    pecnliaritiei  I 

combination  of  trusses ;  a  main  truss  thai  a 

Q.    Perhaps  we  had  bettei  and  learn  I 

bridge.     You  have  given  us  your  method  of  . 
history  of  that  bridge,  whi  I 


102  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

then  how  this  bridge  was  built.  A.  The  original  bridge  that  was  on 
the  line  of  the  road  when  the  road  was  built  was  two  wooden  Howe 
trusses,  the  track  being  close  to  one.  It  was  in  poor  condition,  and 
I  recommended  that  an  iron  truss  be  put  in  the  place  of  it.  That 
truss  was  built  by  the  National  Bridge  Compan}-  of  Boston,  from 
designs  submitted  by  them,  and  put  in  place  by  them.  After  remain- 
ing there  four  or  five  years,  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  the  other 
wooden  truss  — 

Q.  Which  truss  was  that,  —  the  first  one?  A.  The  first,  one  was 
on  the  north  side,  or  west  side,  as  you  call  it,  I  believe. 

Q.  The  west  truss  was  first  replaced  by  one  built  by  the  National 
Bridge  Company  of  Boston?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  after  how  many  years  was  there  another  change  made? 
A.  I  think  it  was  four  or  five  years  ;  I  don't  remember  the  exact 
time.  The  other  wooden  truss  being  poor,  it  was  suggested  that 
another  iron  truss  be  put  in.  The  first  iron  truss  was  designed,  I 
think,  for  two  thousand  pounds  per  lineal  foot.  It  being  light,  and 
our  engines  growing  heavier,  I  suggested  that  we  make  a  change  and 
have  a  heavier  truss  put  in  the  place  of  it,  instead  of  changing  the 
track  on  to  the  easterly  side,  which  would  have  been  necessary. 
There  was  only  one  track  over  the  bridge,  but  it  was  wide  enough  for 
two  tracks  originally.  The  old  Howe  truss  was  only  designed  for  one 
track,  but  the  bridge  was  wide  enough  for  two  tracks. 

Q.  Won't  you  repeat  what  you  said  in  regard  to  this  westerly 
truss,  which  was  the  first  one  put  in,  that  was  designed  for  2,000 
pounds?  A.  I  think  it  was  designed  for  2,000  pounds  per  lineal 
foot. 

Q.  What  was  your  suggestion ?  A.  I  suggested  that  we  take  it 
out  and  put  it  in  the  position  of  the  remaining  wooden  truss,  and 
have  a  truss  that  would  anticipate  our  wants  put  in  its  place  ;  and 
that  was  done.  When  that  matter  was  decided,  I  requested  the 
National  Bridge  folks  to  submit  a  plan  and  a  bid  for  putting  in  a 
truss  there  carrying  3,000  pounds  per  lineal  foot.  They  did  so.  I 
requested  Mr.  E.  H.  Hewins,  of  the  Metropolitan  Bridge  Company, 
to  submit  a  plan  and  bid,  and  he  did  so.  After  consultation  with  the 
superintendent,  it  was  decided  that  Mr.  Hewins  should  take  the  mat- 
ter in  hand,  build  that  one  truss  and  put  it  in  there.  He  had  the 
truss  built,  and  put  it  in  position,  with  the  help  of  my  men,  he  super- 
intending its  erection ;  and  everything  was  done  as  he  wished. 

Q.  How  about  the  track?  Was  the  track  moved  at  all?  A.  No  ; 
the  track  remained  the  same  as  it  was  originally,  on  the  same  line  of 
travel.  The  rail  nearest  to  the  main  truss  was  within  perhaps  a  foot 
of  the  truss,  and  the  top  of  the  main  truss  was  higher  than  what  the 
track  was ;  and  to  avoid  any  trouble  from  the  snow-plough  striking 


APPENDIX.  103 

it,  when  we  imt  the  sleepers  on,  or  were  going  to  pnt  them  on,  I  bad 
timbers  thick  enough  lai<l  <>n  the  iron  stringers  to  for  it  u\>  sufficiently 
so  that  the  track  should  come  as  high  :is  the  top  of  the  top  chord. 

Q.    Which  truss  is  the  one  which  whs  pot   in  first?     A.    I 
which  is  on  the  further  side  of  it.  or  what  you  call  the  i  ■ 

n.   That   is  the  oldest   truss?     A.    Yes,  Bir;    thai     -    th< 

truss. 

Q.     I  low  long  ago  was  that  put  in?     A.   This  new  one  wns  put  in 
place  in  June,  1876,  and  the  other  one  was  changed  into  that  p 
at  tlir  same  time. 

Q.    Well,  when  was  the   further  one  put  in  originally?     A. 
four  or  five  years  before  ;  I  have  nol  gol  the  date  exactly. 

(.,).  Somewhere  aboul  1871  or  1872?  A.  Yes,  Bir;  it  must  have 
been  somewhere  about  that  time. 

Q.  That  is  a  rectangular  truss?  A.  res,  sir;  that  is  the  Howe 
truss. 

Q.    That  was  put  in  in  1871  or  1872?      \.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  this,  —  an  octagonal  truss,  or  what?  A.  I 
don't  call  it  anything  except  Mr.  Hewins' truss ;  I  don't  know  what 
to  call  it. 

n     Mr.  Hewins'  truss  was  put  in  when?     A.    In  June,  1876. 

o.  Have  you  got  the  contract  that  was  made  in  regard  to  that? 
A.  I  have  the  contract  and  the  diagram,  which  is  all  that  I  ever  had 
about  it.  1  think,  —  all  that  I  find. 

(The  witness  produced  the  contract,  which  was  lead,  as  folio 

19  I 
George  Folsom,  Esq.,  Master  Carpenter,  Boston  A  /'< 

] > i  \ i ;  Sir, —  li  is  hereby  offered  to  build  and  erect  on  the  i 
nished  bj  yourself,  near  Bussej  Woods,  one  iron  main  I 
with  iron  cross  bearers  and  iron  3tringers  under  tl 

.  be  proportioned  and  ai 
end  of  the  cross  bearers  to  be  attached  to  tin-  mai 
the  iron  tin-  now-  formin  of  the  bridg 

be  placed  for  one  track,  but  the 

ceive  string  rs  of    econd  tr     k  :it  an\  future  time;  the 
iroportioned  thai  a  uniformlj  'li-"-: 

nu  tour  locomotive  drivers  shall  strain  no 
pounds  per  square  inch,  and  no 

•rmula.    The  material 
iron,  tli.'  tension  b 
,  for  the  purpose,  and 

pounds  per  square  inch,  with 
twenty-five  percent,  the  origin  J  length  of  the  ba 


104  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

point  of  fracture  of  nol  Less  than  thirty  per  cent,  the  clastic  limit  being 
about  28,000  pounds  per  square  inch ;  and  the  compression  members  to  be 
of  the  best  quality  of  American  shapes  and  plates;  the  workmanship  to 
be  first-class  in  every  respect  ;  all  holes  to  be  bored  and  bearing  surfaces 

dressed  truly  normal  to  the  lines  of  strain,  no  error  of  more  than  -,,',„  of  an 
inch  in  diameter  of  pin  or  hole,  nor  more  than  ,,,'„„  foot,  in  the  length  of 
tension  or  compression  members,  to  be  allowed:  all  screws,  threads  and 
nuts  to  lie  cut  to  lit.  and  turned  smoothly  and  true,  and  the  bars  to  have  at 
least  equal  area  under  the  thread  as  in  the  body  of  the  bar.  All  machine- 
cut  parts  to  be  covered  with  white  lead  and  tallow,  and  all  other  parts 
with  one  -oat  of  the  best  mineral  paint  and  oil,  and  before  leaving  the 
works,  and  all  to  be  covered  with  a  second  coat  of  the  same  paint  of  such 
color  as  may  be  prescribed  after  erection.  We  will  build  and  erect  the 
structure  complete  in  every  respect,  ready  for  one  track,  and  ready  to 
receive  the  stringers  of  the  second  track,  for  the  sum  of  84,500;  or  we  will 
furnish  the  material  as  above  described  ready  for  erection,  and  deliver  to 
the  road  at  Providence  or  Boston  for  the  sum  of  $4,000,  and  we  will  furnish 
superintendence  for  erection.  The  above  is  for  a  thoroughly  iirst-class 
structure  in  every  respect,  including  a  special  brand  of  iron  for  all  tension 
members,  superior  exactness  of  manufacture,  and  in  strength  to  be  fully 
up  to  that  specified.  The  provisions  for  concentrated  loads  on  the  locomo- 
tive drivers,  though  adding  to  the  expense,  being,  a.-  we  believe  an  es- 
pecially valuable  requirement.    Yours  respectfully, 

Metropolitan  Bridge  Company. 

Q.    AVhat  other  paper  have  you  there?     A.    Simply  a  diagram. 

(Diagram  shown  and  explained  to  the  commissioners.) 

Q.  Now,  describe  such  circumstances  as  you  remember  iu  connec- 
tion with  the  making  of  that  contract.  A.  The  first  iron  truss,  the 
one  that  was  built  by  the  National  Bridge  Company,  was,  according 
to  Mr.  Hewins'  estimate,  not  up  to  the  standard  of  what  was  required 
in  the  place.  It  had  been  in  use  for  four  or  five  years  in  that  position. 
But  it  was  sufficient  if  placed  over  in  the  other  position,  where  it 
would  receive  only  one-quarter  of  the  strain  ;  and  that  probably  had 
something  to  do  with  Mr.  Hewins  having  this  particular  job. 

Q.  You  estimate  the  strain  upon  it  as  one:quarter?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
in  this  position,  as  it  was  for  the  last  ten  years. 

Q.  How  was  that  a  reason  for  Mr.  Hewins  having  the  job? 
A.    Well,  I  asked  two  parties  to  submit  bids. 

Q.  What  two  parties?  A.  The  National  Bridge  Company  and  Mr. 
Hewins,  or  the  Metropolitan  Bridge  Company,  as  he  called  it.  I  didn't 
know  anything  about  the  company  other  than  his  styling  it  the  Met- 
ropolitan Bridge  Company.  He  was  their  engineer.  He  went  out 
there  and  made  his  measurements  to  make  his  plans  for  it.  While 
there,  I  think  he  took  the  dimensions  of  the  old  truss,  and  he  reported 
to  us  that  it  was  not  what  it  ought  to  be  for  the  position  ;  and  I  im- 
mediately put  in  extra  security  in  the  shape  of  timber,  so  that  there 


APPENDIX.  105 

Bhoold  be  do  doubt  whatever  in  regard  to  the  safety,  until  h«'  ;_'<>t  his 

new  truss  done  and  put  in. 

<).    That  was  put  in  in  L876?      A.     L876. 

().    What   method   did  you  adopt   of  testing   the   strength   of  it. 
A.    We  used  two  locomotives  ;    took  the  tenders  from  the  locon 
and  backed  them  together,  so  as  to  gel  all  the  hefl  of  the  locomotive 
part  as  near  together  as  possible,  and  put  them  on  the  bridg< 
tuck  the  deflection. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  deflection?  [f  you  have  any  record  of  the 
test  that  you  made,  please  give  us  all  the  information  that  you  have  in 
regard  t.>  it.  A.  (Referring  to  memorandum.)  The  engine  was  run 
on  to  the  bridge  slowly.  The  deflectioi  b  of  the  north  truss  at  the 
three  main  points  were  as  follows:  Point  l.  ,'  "fan  inch;  point 
2.  T2^  of  an  inch;    point  3,  f^  of  an   inch;    avi  ["he  II. 

A.  Chace  and  D.  L.  Davis  tenders  together  were  run  np  slow] 
the  hridge.     The  deflection  of   the    north    tri 

point  2,  y'6  :  points,  f^;  average.  ,s,,.  Both  machines  were  run  at 
the  usual  train  rate  down  over  the  bridge,  and  the  deflection  of  the 
north  truss  was :  Point  1.  fa  ;  point  2.^;  point  3,  ,',.  :  average, 
8^-1  Gths.  Both  locomotives  together  were  then  run  up  over  the 
bridge.  The  south  truss  deflected  an  average  of-  of  an  inch. 
engine  weighed  74,900  pounds ;  tender,  24,230;  water,  21.250 
6,000  pounds.     That  is  as  was  given  to  me  by  the  master  mechanic. 

Q.  Each  engine  the  same?  A.  The  same;  so  little  difference  that 
it  was  probably  of  no  account. 

Q.    (By  .Mr.  Kinsley.)     This  was  the  test   made  when   I 
was  built?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Was  the  test  satisfactory  to  yon  \ 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Was  the  method  of  construction  satisfactory  ?     A.     ! 
it  was.    My  experience  with  those  two  trusses  was  my  first  exp< 
in  iron  bridge  erection. 

Q.    Did  you  find  any   fault  with  it  at  that  time?     A.    1  b 
recollection  of  finding  any  fault  with  it. 

n.    Do  you  remember  whether  you  thought  it  would  be  h 
build  a  bridge  with  two  trusses  of  the  same  character?     A. 
time  it  was  thoughl  best,  if  1  recollect  right,  to  put  another  ti 
the  other  side  ;  and  cross  floor  beams  were  put  on  with  the  h  I 
of  attaching  them  to  another  truss  of  the  same  kind  on  tl 

Q.    At  the  time  it  was  thoughl  besl  by  whom?     A.    Well,  tl 
the  plan  that  was  made.     His  design  was  to  put  if  over  there,  and  in 
case  we   accepted  this  truss  as  being  a  good  article,  I 
the  second  track  was  put  on.  we  should   put  another  truss  on  the 
y  (south)  side,  of  the  Bame  kind  as  the  one  on  tl 


106  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

and  the  cross  beams  were  designed  to  connect  with  another  truss  of 
that  kind  on  the  south  side,  or  east  side  as  3'ou  call  it. 

Q.  Did  you  think  at  that  time  of  changing  the  old  truss  on  the  east 
side,  without  waiting  for  the  double  track?  A.  No,  sir;  because  it 
was  all-sufficient  for  the  purpose,  only  carrying  one-quarter  of  the 
load. 

Q.  Now,  what  tests  have  you  made  of  the  bridge  since  the  original 
tests,  and  what  faults  have  you  discovered  in  it  since  then  ?  A.  I  have 
made  no  tests  other  than  watching  its  operation. 

Q.    No  test  at  all?     A.    I  don't  remember  of  making  any  test. 
Q.    Since  the  original  test?     A.    No. 

Q.  You  have  never  tested  the  deflection  by  a  train  going  over  it? 
A.  No.  I  may  possibly,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  now.  I 
have  no  record  of  it  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  nature  of  the  repairs  that  have  been  required 
on  that  bridge?  A.  Very  little,  indeed.  I  don't  remember  of  any 
particular  repairs,  further  than  there  may  have  been  a  few  sleepers 
replaced  with  new  ones.  I  don't  remember  of  even  replacing  a  sleeper 
on  the  bridge.  We  put  steel  rails  on  the  biidge  60  feet  long,  I  think, 
so  as  to  have  as  few  joints  as  possible.  That  is  the  plan  which  we 
have  adopted  on  other  bridges. 

Q.  The  bridge  was  100  feet  long.  AVhere  were  the  60-feet  rails 
united?     A.    I  think  they  were  united  somewheres  near  the  middle. 

Q.  That  is,  they  extended  over  on  each  side  about  ten  feet?  A. 
Well,  the  actual  opening  at  the  top  of  the  bridge  is  some  over  104 
feet,  according  to  the  batter  of  the  wall ;  and  the  position  that  the 
truss  sets  in,  it  may  be  115  feet,  or  such  matter  ;  so  that  we  had  the 
two  rails  extended  on  to  the  embankment  at  each  end,  and  the  joints 
were  on  the  earth. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  find  any  portion  of  either  truss  cracked?  A.  You 
mean  the  old  truss  and  the  new  ? 

Q.  Yes  ;  either  of  the  two  main  trusses.  A.  I  don't  remember 
of  seeing  any  part  of  them  defective. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discover  any  traces  of  cracks  in  any  portion  of 
the  iron  work  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  don't  remember  of  seeing  any 
crack  in  any  part. 

'Q.  You  never  repaired  any  portion  of  the  bridge?  A.  Not  that 
I  have  any  recollection  of  whatever.  I  should  probably  have  recol- 
lected it  if  I  had,  but  I  can't  bring  to  mind  any  occasion  when  1  have 
had  any  occasion  to  repair  it,  further  than  to  put  on  some  of  the  nuts 
where  the  boys  had  stolen  them  off. 

Q.  Are  boys  in  the  habit  of  climbing  over  the  bridge?  A.  Yes; 
climb  through  it  like  spiders. 


APPENDIX.  107 

( ).    Since  1876  you  have  learned  more  in  regard  to  iron 
you  knew  then?     A.    ires,  sir,  I  suppose  s<> :  ougl  I 

Q.    What  faults  have  you  detected  in  1   e  consti 
those  trusses  of  the  bridge?      \.    1  have  never  detected  anj  i 
although  I  should  not   build  another  bridge  of  that  kind, 
should  have  a  bridge  made  of  fewer  pit  i 

Q.  In  what  respect  fewer  pieces?  A.  Well,  in  every  particular, 
vou  might  say.  The  bridges  of  to-day  are  made  with  links,  without 
screws  on  the  ends  of  the  main  connections,  and  bitched  together  with 
pins  sliding  through  the  eye  of  the  link. 

Q.    Have  you  never  found  any  fault  with  that  bridge,  or  reported  any 
anxiety  in  regard  to  it?     A.    Never  that   I   have  any  recollection.     I 
don't  know  why  I  should;  I  don't  remember  of  any  occasion.     1  have 
always  considered  the  bridge  as  thoroughly  substantial.     I   ki 
was  designed  to  meet  all  the  necessities  of  the 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  anxiety  as  to  any  portion  of  the  bridge 
that  is  covered  up  and  you  could  not  examine?  A.  No;  I  believed 
the  bridge  to  he  thoroughly  made  in  every  particular;  I  had  not  a 
doubt  about  it.     Every  part   that  shows  or   -  I  have  exam- 

ined repeatedly.  I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  any  part  fail,  with 
the  exception  of  one  little  counter;  the  nut  was  Btripped,  probably 
when  the  bridge  was  set  up.  It  didn't  amount  to  much  of  anything, 
it  was  a  sleeve  nut. 

Q.  t)u  :l  counter-rod?  A.  Yes,  a  little  counter-rod  :  it  was  in  the 
middle  of  one  of  the  small  trusses  that  held  up  the  track  - 

By  Mr.  Stevens.)     You  mean  that  the  thread  was  strip]  ■ 
of  the  nut?     A.    Stripped  off  of  the  nut ;  yes, 

<>.    (By  the  Chairman.)      How  Ion-   was  that  after  the  trot 
erected?     A.    I   can't   tell  you  ;  it  had  been  a 
examined  it  closely,  and  watched   the  operation   to  see  if  th< 
any  real  necessity  for  repairing  it.     There  was  a  difficulty  in  making 
any  change.      The  whole  structure  was  woven  together  in 
that  it  was  difficult,  in   case  there  was  any  failure, 
part    and    replace    it   with    another.      In  this    particular   ci 
small  rod  about  the  size  of  your  fing<  r.     I  suppoa 
for  assistance   in   putting   the  work   together   than 
supposed    at  that  time  that  it  was  a  litl 

work  together,  because  1   know   thai   the}  ha 
get  everything  together  and   g< 

3nug,  trig    piece    of    WO 
the  :iu-. 

Q.    Was  it  repaired  ?     A.    No;   I  watc  ed  to 

change  in  the  motion  ly  the 

it  did  not  appear  to  amount  to  anything,  and   I 


108  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

to  take  it  out,  because  I  did  not  consider  it  really  necessary  or  essen- 
tial.    That  is  the  only  thing  about  the  whole  structure  that  has  shown  j 
a  sign  of  failure. 

Q.  Is  this  truss  wrought  iron  or  cast  iron?  A.  The  truss  is  of 
wrought  iron,  except  the  end  blocks,  where  the  main  top  chord  unites] 
with  the  leaning  post  there  and  the  piece  that  it  sets  on  down  ,j 
there. 

Q.    That  and    that?     (Indicating.)     A.    Yes;    on    those    points.  I 
And  there  is  a  casting  where  the  main  links  of  the  base  chord  unite, 
where  the  pin  goes  through  ;  that  is  cast  iron. 

Q.  Please  show  that  to  us.  A.  (Referring  to  photograph.)  There 
is  a  little  casting  there  at  the  panel  bent.  That  is  simply  to  steady 
the  ends  of  these  main  links  that  form  the  base  chord  through  here.  J 
That  is  a  casting  there  that  forms  the  sides  of  the  bridge,  and  one 
there  is  cast  iron.  That  is  a  cast  iron  I  block  in  there,  and  one  there  I 
also  ;  and  some  of  these  members  in  here,  little  small  members,  are 
cast  iron.  It  is  not  essential  that  the}'  should  be  wrought  iron.  I 
believe  that  is  all  there  are. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Is  it  not  essential  that  that  I  block  should 
have  been  wrought  iron?  A.  No  ;  cast  iron,  I  think,  is  just  as  good 
for  it,  made  solid  as  it  was.  It  was  solid  enough  without  any  shadow 
of  doubt. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Won't  you  describe  that  ca  ting,  and 
what  duty  it  performs  (referring  to  the  block  between  the  top  chord 
and  the  leaning  post  at  the  north  end)  ?  A.  It  takes  the  thrust  of 
the  end  post  of  the  top  chord. 

Q.  You  have  seen  that  since?  A.  I  saw  it  on  the  ground  after 
the  accident.     I  was  there  on  Mouda}*  and  saw  it  lying  there. 

Q.  What  was  its  condition?  A.  It  was  perfect  as  far  as  I  could 
see,  with  one  exception.  It  had  received  a  most  terrific  blow,  break- 
ing off  four  or  five  inches  of  cast  iron  .from  it.  That  appeared  to  be 
from  a  blow  which  was  received  above  the  top  chord.  The  casting 
extended  a  little  above  the  top  chord,  perhaps  three-quarters  of  an 
inch,  possibly,  anil  was  rounded  off  similar  to  the  end  of  my  thumb ; 
but  it  had  received  a  shock  in  the  direction  of  the  train,  that  had 
broken  awaj'  more  or  less  of  the  casting. 

Q.  What  other  duty  did  the  block  have  to  do?  A.  It  had  a  pin 
through  it  that  held  this  main  link  that  supported  the  middle  of  the 
bridge.  It  kept  that  link  in  position  on  that  pin.  Inside  was  a 
stirrup,  made,  I  think,  of  inch  and  a  half  square  iron,  looped  down  to 
take  the  end  of  the  floor-beam  running  across,  the  other  end  of  which 
rested  upon  the  abutment. 

Q.  Now,  describe  those  hangers  more  fully.  A.  It  was  a  loop,  if 
I  recollect  right,  of  inch  and  a  half  iron  (I  did  not  measure  it,  only 


APPENDIX.  109 

by  my  eye),  that  had  two  eyes  formed  at  the  end  of  it,  that  this 
pin  went  through.     The  lower  pari  of  il  formed  a  li 

Q.    Could  you  draw  it?     (The  witness  roadi 

Q.    Was  that  a   righl  angle  at   the  I 

think  it  was  turned  with  a  small  curve.     The  banging  stirm 
was  about  an  inch  and  a  half  square,  I  think.     1  <li<ln'i  stop  to 
hie  it.  for  I  supposed  it  would  be  bere 
similar  to  that,  if  1  remember  right. 

1 1.    What    I  wanl  I    is  this,  did  j o 

irons?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    How  were  tney  covered  up?     A. 
block. 

Q.  Inside  of  the  end  block,  and  yon  could  not  examine  tbem? 
A.    I  could  not  examine  tbem. 

Q.    Did  the  support  of  thai  Boor-beam  depend  upon  those  Btirrup 
bona?     A.    I  suppose  that  it  did,  practically,  sir,  as  the  post  in  here 
-  from  the  base  chord  up  to  and  under  the  cross- beam. 

(.,).  What  is  the  nature  of  thai  post?  A.  [t  is  an  I  beam  (we  call 
them  1  beams)  ;  it  is  a  web  with  a  head  on  it.  That  does  not  amount 
to  hut  little;  it  certainly  would  help  some,  but  litth        !  in  sup- 

port of  the  cross-beam  is  from  these  hangers,  as  m  ar  as  I  can  remem- 
ber anything  about  it. 

<y  The  construction  of  those  bangers  was  such  that  you  could  not 
examine  them?     A.    1  could  not  examine  them. 

<y  No  way  of  examining  them?  A.  I  don't  know  of  any  way  to 
examine  them. 

Q.    Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  thai  thai  was  an  important  feal 
that  bridge?     A.    I  never  thoughl  of  it  until  I  saw  the  thing   lying 
down  there. 

<y  You  did  not  know  what  the  construction  was,  did  you?  A.  I 
didn't  remember  about  that  particular  part. 

Q.    Didn't  know  how  the  construction  was.  or  how  th< 
mpported?     A.    I  don'i  remember  the  cross-beam  now. 
bag  it  when  they  were  erecting.      I  was  then-  but  little  while  I 
Btruction  was  going  on  :   I  had  other  business  to  attend  to      I 
wholly  to  Mr.  Hewins  to  bnild  the  bridge  properly  and  put  it  up  then* 
in  proper  shape. 

\ow,  what  is  the  nature  of  the  floor  of  the  brid 
.  what    [a  the    construction   there!  I    ■  ■•  : 

under  each  track,      rbej  wen    so  formed  with  ro 
truss  thai  supported  their  middles.     On  top  of  those  1  beams 
was  a  Btick  o1  timber  put  in  then 

so  that  in  running  the  Bnow-plough  over  the  bridge  it  shoo 
strike  the  top  «hord.     Those  furring  sticks  laid  o 


110  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

fitted  upon  the  I  beams,  the  lip  of  which  clasping  round  the  I  beams,] 
and  bolted  firmly  to  them,  held  these  furring  beams  in  place.  Across! 
those  were  put  the  ties  that  the  track  lays  on.  If  I  recollect  correctly] 
in  regard  to  them,  they  were  six  by  eight. 

Q.  And  how  near  together?  A.  I  can't  tell  you  exactly.  In 
getting  down  there  to  inspect  the  bridge  it  was  difficult  for  me  to  getj 
through,  only  in  a  few  places  ;  so  they  must  have  been  within  tenl 
inches,  perhaps,  of  each  other.  I  don't  remember  the  exact  distance. 
Q.  And  all  through  the  bridge  they  were  practically  the  same  dis- 
tance apart?     A.    About  the  same  thing  ;  intended  to  be. 

Q.  And  were  the  ties  in  good  condition?  A.  I  believe  they  were. 
We  intended  to  renew  them  when  we  put  in  the  second  track. 

Q.  Then  the  tic  was  about  six  inches  wide?  A.  Eight  inches 
wide  on  the  base. 

Q.  And  about  ten  inches  space  between  them?  A.  I  think  that, 
was  about  the  way  in  which  they  were  laid  ;  and  some  of  them  must 
have  been  less  than  that,  for  I  know  that  in  getting  down  I  could  not] 
get  through  them.  In  some  places  I  could.  They  were  a  little  wider 
apart  in  same  places  than  they  were  in  others. 

Q.  What  was  the  construction  of  the  bridge  with  reference  to  the; 
guard  rails  or  guard  timbers?  A.  We  put  a  plank  just  outside  the 
rails.  That  was,  I  think,  three  inches  thick,  and  ten  or  twelve  inches 
wide,  if  I  recollect  right.  That  is  about  the  size  that  we  ordi- 
narily put  on.  We  put  that  on  because  a  short  time  before,  I  think 
it  was,  we  had  a  case  of  derailment,  and  this  plank  acted  as  a  rail, 
and  guided  the  wheels  across  the  bridge,  —  a  small  bridge  at  Hyde 
Park.  It  served  a  good  purpose  there,  and  we  put  them  on  at  thisj 
place. 

Q.    Did  you  have  anything  else?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    How  far  out  did  those  planks  go?     A.    I  think  they  extended 
out  on  to  the  abutment. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  outside  of  the  planking?  A.  Only  the 
ends  of  the  sleepers  stuck  out  outside  of  it,  excepting  where  the  toy. 
chord  came,  in  there  ;   that  cut  them  short. 

Q.  Are  the  sleepers  at  the  end  of  the  bridge  beyond  the  top  chord  | 
A.  I  extended  those  out  so  as  to  give  the  trackmen  a  better  chance 
to  stand.  I  should  have  extended  the  others  in  the  same  way,  but 
that  this  chord  came  in  the  way  ;  so  that  they  had  to  stand  inside  the 
track  in  doing  whatever  they  did  there.  This  was  put  on  merely  foi 
the  safety  and  convenience  of  the  track  men  in  their  work.  There  is 
a  chord  timber  out  there,  to  keep  everything  in  place,  bolted  to  the 
sleepers  ;   bolted,  but  not  hinged. 

Q.  It  was  a  piece  of  timber  that  had  been  used  for  something  else 
I  suppose?     A.    It  was  a  piece  of  old  bridge  timber. 


APPENDIX.  ill 

Q.    How  far  was  it  from  the  track  t<>  this  compression  beam 
I  think  there  was  something  like  ten  inches  bet*  •   that 

chord  plank  laid  down  between  the  t<>[>  chord  and  the  ti: 

Q.   The  chord  plank,  then,  virtually  re«  top  chord? 

A.    Well,  it  was  up  close  to  it  :   must  have  been. 

Q.    l»o  you  believe  that  the  ties  of  a  bridge  should  be 
as  those  ties  were?     A.    We  put  all  our  ties  at   present  only  four 

Inches  apart.     Wherever  we  renew  anything  we  i pletely  floor  the 

bridge,  you  might  say.     The  bridge  that  we  are  building  at  pi 
or  having  built  in  Dedbam,  we  intend  to  put  them  i 

Q     i  r.\    Mr.  Stevens.)     How  close?     A.    Tiny  are  put  in  four 
inches  apart  out  of  the  road,  ordinarily.     All  my  later  hri'L 
built  in  that  shape. 

cv>.    (By    Mr.  Putnam.)     You   mean  four  inches  apart  whei 
say  close  together?     A.    I  say  those  at  Dedham  we  intend  to  put 
close  together. 

<v>.     That    is,  closer    than    four    inches?      A.    In    contacl    wit 
other.     Outside  of  the  road  we  put   them  four  inches  apart,  to  «dlow 
snow  and  matter  that  might  lie  on  them  to  go  through  out  of  tin   way. 
It  makes  almost  a  complete  floor,  sufficient  for  the  wheels  to  ru 
safely  and  easily  in  case  of  derailment. 

Q.    (By    Mr.  Stevens.)     [f  you   had  had  occasion  to  renew  this 
bridge  would  that  have  been  your  plan?     A     Y.  -.  Bir. 

B      Mr.  Kinsley.)     I   understand  that  you  would   nol 
put  on  a  guard  rail?     A.    1  have  a  feeling  in 
rails,  that  there  a  ly,  where  they  ha 

damage,  if  not  more,  than  would  have  been  done  if  they  had  no 
there.    Bringing  the  guard  rails  to  a  point  between  I 
of  derailment  the  wheels  might  hit  along  the  side  there,  and  m 
derailment  much  worse  than  it  would   be   if  the  guard 
there. 

(  ).     Have   you  ever  known  thai  I   i  '■       I 

,ccur;  that   is  a  supposition,  that  is  a  feeling    ! 
regard  to  it,  and  therefo      I  I  '«>  puttin 

in  such  shape. 

Q.    Have  you  ever  known  a  train  to 

A.     I   never  have,  except   in  I    ■ 

we  had  a  plank  on  the  side,  and  the  flai 
that  plank  and  went  acn 

lone.     The  train  was  moving  slowly  at  the  t 
Q.    i  By  Mr.  mi  m  ns.       [f  you  had  guard 
them  at   the  ends?     A.     I 
and  at   the  large  bridg<    we  have  put  in  at  I 
A-  I 


112  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

bridge  we  put  a  parapet,  high  enough  and  supposed  to  be  strong 
enough. to  hold  in  case  of  derailment.  It  is  only  about  a  foot  from 
the  wheel  of  the  car,  so  that  in  case  of  derailment  the  car  would  come 
up  against  this  iron  work,  to  still  keep  it  on  the  bridge,  so  that  it 
could  not  go  off.  The  Canton  Viaduct  is  only  a  little  wider  than  the 
tracks,  and  we  put  iron  beams  across  them,  making  a  fence  of  iron  on 
each  side,  you  might  say,  — a  strong  structure,  —  to  guide  the  cars 
along  and  keep  them  in  position.  Those  are  flared  at  each  end,  so 
that  in  case  of  derailment  before  they  get  to  the  bridge  it  should  guide 
them  on  to  the  bridge. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  the  distance  apart  of  the  two 
trusses  from  centre  to  centre?     A.    I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  much?  A.  They  must  be  not  far  from  twenty 
feet  from  centre  to  centre  ;  may  be  eighteen  onl}\ 

Q.  How  near  is  the  west  rail  stringer  to  the  west  truss?  A.  1 
think  the  track  is  only  ten  inches,  and  that  is  over  the  centre  of  the 
stringer  ;  I  think  it  is  about  ten  inches  from  the  side  of  the  chord  to 
the  rail.     The  rail  is  placed  over  the  centre  with  the  stringer  under  it. 

Q.  Are  the  embankments  on  either  side  for  single  or  double  track? 
A.  The  road  was  built  originally  for  a  double  track.  The  embank- 
ment where  a  single  track  would  come  in  is  somewhat  lower ;  never 
was  filled  up,  because  it  was  never  used.  It  may  be  two  feet  or  such 
a  matter  below  the  level  of  the  road-bed  where  the  track  is. 

Q.  Is  that  on  both  ends  of  the  bridge?  A.  The  same  on  both 
ends. 

Q.  Then  }'OU  had  approaches  wide  enough  for  two  tracks  with  a 
single  track  on  one  side  of  it?     A.    That  is  true. 

Q.  Would  it  have  been  better,  in  your  opinion,  to  have  put  that 
single  track  nearer  the  middle  of  the  bridge  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  there  is  no  difficulty  in  having  a  bridge  of  that  sort 
with  trains  always  going  on  one  side  of  it?  A.  Well,  it  is  only  a 
two-truss  bridge  ;  the  trusses  were  far  apart  enough  for  the  two 
tracks.  Of  course  it  would  be  better  to  locate  the  tracks  as  closely 
as  you  could  to  the  trusses  on  each  side. 

Q.  You  think  it  is  better  in  a  bridge  with  two  trusses  wide  enough 
apart  for  two  tracks,  if  you  are  going  to  put  only  one  track  on,  to  put 
it  as  near  as  possible  to  the  one  truss?  A.  Yes;  that  truss  is  de- 
signed to  carry  the  load,  and  the  nearer  you  keep  to  it  the  better  it 
will  be. 

Q.  Was  any  complaint  ever  made  to  you  in  regard  to  this  bridge? 
A.  I  don't  remember  of  an}-  complaint  of  any  consequence,  further 
than  perhaps  somebody  walking  over  it  saying  that  it  was  not  safe  to 
walk  over  it. 

Q.    For  fear'they  would  fall  down  through?     A.   Yes  ;  for  fear  they 


APPENDIX.  113 

would  fall  over  it.     That  would  be  outside  parties.     I 
particular  case  in  which  any  one  connected  with  the   road  b 
found  a  word  of  fault.     I  have  repeatedly  asked  in  i  to  it,   fthev 

felt  anything  out  of  the  way  in  it.  and  I  have  nevei  !  from 

first  to  last  but  that  it  was  perfect. 

Q.    Now.  recall  more  carefully  about  the  engineers.     Did  any  of 
the  engineers  ever  complain  to  you,  or  make  any  statement  t..  you  in 
regard  to  that  bridge,  that  they  found  any  fault  with  it  whal 
A.    I  don't  remember  of  any  occasion.     One  circumstan 
me  now:    I  think  it  was  that  some  one  driving  under  the  bridg 
that  Mime  part  of  the  bridge  was  out  of  order.     Be  reported  it  to  the 
superintendent  ;    he  sent   me  word,  and    I  went   immediately  to  the 
bridge  and  examined   it  thoroughly.      And   soon  after  a  train    arrived 
from  Boston,  and   I  sat  down  close  by  the  side  of  the  track,  m< 
the  engineer  to  come  on  to  it,  and  I  watched  the  deflection.      ! 
not  see  a  particle,  and  I  think  he  told  me  he  felt  nothing  whatever 
out  of  the  way.      It  was  simply  an  outsider  that  had  no  Interest  what- 
ever in  regard  to  the  bridge;    I   don't  know  who  it  was.      He  simply 
reported  it  to  the  superintendent,  and  of  course  it  was  my  bnsi 
go  and  see.     I  found  nothing  out  of  the  way  in  the  bridge  in  any  par- 
ticular. 

Q.    How  long  ago  was  that?     A.    I  don't  know;  it  may  be 
eight  years  ago. 

Q.    Since  that  time  no  passenger  and  none  of  the  engineers  have 
reported  anything  out  of  the  way?     A.    I  have  no  recollection  of  any 
one  ever  saying  anything  to  me  about  it;  I  have  not  the  leasl 
lection  of  it.     It  is  not  impossible  that  they  might  hav< 
thing  about  it,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  hearing  an;. 
plaint. 

Q.   About  any  jar  of  the  bridge  or  anything  of  thai  Bort?      \ 
I  don't  remember  of  hearing  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.    Do  you  give  instructions  in  regard  to  tl  \er the 

bridges?    A.    No,  sir;   I  consulted  with  the  superintendent,  and  it 
was  decided   that  the  engineer-,  should    have  orders  to  run  their  train- 
Blow  over  that  particular  bridge.      I   don't    know  that    t: 
ever  been  countermanded. 

Q.     What  was  the  late  of  speed?      A.     I  think  it  wa~  ten  or  twelve 

miles  an  hour ;  I  don't  remember. 

Q.    Did  you  suppose  that  trains  were  being  run  over  il 
rate  of  speed?     A.    I   have   noticed  them  frequently  in  passiu 

the  bridge;    I  don't  think  they  run  any  faster  than  that.      I  thi 
more  frequent  that  they  run  less  than  twelve  miles  an   ho 
do  over  twelve. 


114  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Did  3-ou  suppose  the  bridge  was  safe  for  twenty  miles  an  hour? 
A.    I  should  not  be  afraid  to  ride  over  it  at  fifty  miles  an  hour. 

Q.  Would  the  curve  of  the  track  before  coming  on  the  bridge, 
especially  in  coming  from  Roslindale,  make  any  difference?  A.  No, 
sir.  There  was  a  straight  line  over  the  bridge,  and  fifty  feet  each 
side  of  it.  It  was  put  in  in  that  shape  so  that  there  should  be  no 
effect  from  the  curve  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  Would  the  cars  get  over  the  swinging  motion  from  that  curve 
by  the  time  they  got  on  to  the  bridge?  A.  It  was  supposed  they 
might,  and  the  fifty  feet  on  each  side  was  allowed,  because  that  was 
the  length  of  the  car. 

Q.  In  your  judgment,  would  they?  A.  I  don't  know  why  they 
should  not.  Running  at  the  rate  of  speed  they  run  there,  the  swing 
could  not  amount  to  much,  anyhow,  at  that  point. 

Q.  That  is  what  is  called  a  skew  bridge,  is  it  not?  A.  I  should 
say  it  was. 

Q.  That  is,  it  crosses  the  street  diagonally?  A.  Yes,  sir;  at  a 
very  sharp  angle. 

Q.  And  that  is  a  more  difficult  bridge  to  build,  and  a  more  danger- 
ous bridge,  than  a  bridge  at  right  angles?  A.  I  don't  know  as  it  is 
necessarily. 

Q.   It  is  more  difficult  to  build?     A.    Not  particularly. 

Q.  It  is  not  more  difficult  to  build?  A.  I  don't  see  that  it  is. 
Instead  of  long  cross-beams  to  go  across  the  entire  truss,  they  simply 
land  on  the  abutment.  In  some  ways  it  is  better  than  it  would  be  if 
at  right  angles,  as  far  as  that  matter  is  concerned. 

Q.  Taking  all  the  considerations  together,  is  it  more  difficult  to 
build  a  skew  bridge  than  a  bridge  at  right  angles?  A.  I  don't  know 
as  it  is.  The  main  trusses  are  the  same  in  both  cases  ;  it  is  merely 
the  attachments  to  the-  cross-beams.  In  one  case  part  of  the  cross- 
beams are  attached  to  the  abutments,  and  in  the  other  case,  that  of  a 
right-angle  bridge,  they  would  simply  be  attached  to  the  other  truss. 

Q.  Is  there  any  peculiar  strain  that  comes  on  a  bridge  of  this  sort? 
A.  Only  at  the  end  of  the  bridge.  The  heft  of  the  engine  strikes 
one  side  of  the  rail  on  the  track  of  the  bridge  before  it  does  the  other. 
It  never  rides  as  well.  We  can  never  make  a  bridge  that  will  ride  as 
well  on  a  skew  as  we  can  at  right  angles,  where  it  is  possible  to  have 
a  right-angle  bridge.  [ 

Q.  Have  you  any  other  bridges  on  the  road  that  are  as  much  skew 
bridges  as  this?  A.  We  have  but  very  few  bridges  on  the  road  now. 
They  are  most  all  built  up  with  masonry.  There  is  one  bridge  at 
Central  Fails  ;  one  at  India  Point,  Providence,  and  one  at  Rumford. 
That  was  a  bridge  nearly  four  hundred  feet  long.  It  was  recon- 
structed three  or  four  3  ears  ago,  and  shortened  up  to  two  hundred 


APPENDIX.  US 

feet  for  the  open  bridge,  and  masonry  arches  pat  in  at  each  end. 
That  is  all  right-angle  work.  The  Dedham  bridge  wo  are  now  chang- 
ing is  on  an  angle,  but  not  so  'is  is, 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  peculiar  anxiety  about  this  bridge  more 
than  about  other  bridges?  A.  I  don't  know  that  1  have  ;  do,  bit.  I 
considered  it  perfectly  safe  in  every  way.  Knowing  that  the  line  of 
the  track  was  straight  for  a  piece  at  each  end  of  the  bridge,  and  the 
rate  of  speed  going  over  it,  it  did  not  seem  to  me  that  there  should 
be  any  occasion  for  any  anxiety  in  regard  to  it.  I  don't  know  that  I 
should  have  any  anxiety  about  that  bridge  anyway  ;  I  don't  know  why  I 
shonld,  because  I  considered  it  thorough  and  substantial  in 
particular. 

Q.    Did  any  passengers  ever  express  any  anxiety  to  you.  or  to  any 
officers  of  the  corporation  which  was  reported  to  you,  in   regard    to 
that  bridge?     A.    I  don't  think  that  they  have.     It  has  been  n 
to  me  that  people  have  said  that  that  bridge  was  not  safe  down  there  ; 
but  I  don't  know  who  made  the  remark  or  anything  about  it. 

Q.  How  did  that  come  about?  A.  Well,  some  our  happened, — 
in  talking  about  one  matter  and  another,  that  bridg  >me  up, 

and  I  recollect  of  hearing  some  people  Bay  — but  I  considered  they 
were  only  those  who  were  walking  over  it  —  that  they  did  not  con- 
sider it  safe  ;  the  same  passengers  probably  that  have  ma 
remark  I  have  heard  outside, — floating  criticism.  That  i>  all  I  know 
about  it,  —  the  same  as  some  people  say  now  that  they  never 
ered  it  safe,  and  yet  rode  over  it  every  day.  I  don't  know  any  par- 
ticular case. 

Q.  What  reports  of  that  sort  have  come  to  you?  A.  Nothing 
further  than  just  a  casual  remark,  you  might  - 

Q.  Did  they  report  any  swing  of  the  cars  on  the  bridge,  or  any- 
thing of  that  sort?  A.  1  don't  remember  of  hearing  of  anything  uf 
that  kind. 

Q.  Or  any  jar?  A.  I  don't  remember  of  hearing  of  anything  of 
that  kind. 

Q.    How  were  the  compression  members   in   the  top  chord  of  the 
vertical  posts,  etc.,  attached  to  their  castings?     A.    I 
eted  on  to  the  inside  of  the  chord  member,  and  extended  into  the 
casting.      What   we   call    a   "lug"  is    a   piece  of  iron   list  led   on. — 
ears  that  stick  out  on  the  end  to  project  into  tl 

Q.    (By    Mr.  Kinsley.)     Yourcontn  [uality 

of  iron  in  the  construction  of  this  bridge.     Did 
your  suggestion,  examine  into  the  iron,  or  did  you  lea1 
Hewins?    A.   I  left  it  to  Mr.  Hewins.     [supposed  that 
proper  structure  to  put  there.     A-  I  -     ,  that  was  :.. 
in  anything  of  that  kind. 


116  BUSSEY   BEIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Now,  in  building  a  new  bridge  at  this  point,  should  you  recom- 
mend a  new  iron  bridge,  or  would  you  change  the  highway  a  little 
and  put  up  a  stone  arch?  A.  I  should  change  the  highway  and  put 
up  an  arch,  decidedly.  We  adopted  that  plan  years  ago.  We  had  a 
bridge  at  Dodgeville  which  was  over  two  hundred  feet  long ;  we  took 
that  away  and  put  in  two  brick  arches  and  filled  up.  That  has  been 
the  policy  of  the  road,  —  to  do  away  with  everything  of  that  kind  that 
was  possible,  and  make  solid,  substantial  work. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Mr.  Folsom,  if  I  understood  you  right, 
for  twenty-five  years  you  have  regarded  yourself  responsible  for  the 
safe  condition  of  the  bridges  of  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad  ? 
A.  Well,  you  can  put  that  as  }Tou  please.  I  was  appointed  to  that 
place,  and  that  work  was  put  into  my  hands  to  attend  to  it,  and  I 
have  attended  to  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Q.  I  understood  that  you  were  the  sole  person  to  take  charge  of 
this  business?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    That  has  been  for  twenty-five  years,  since  1861  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  what  had  been  your  experience  in  me- 
chanics? A.  I  was  ten  years  in  the  machine  shop,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Master  Mechanic  Mr.  George  S.  Griggs. 

Q.   The  machine  shop  of  the  Providence  Railroad?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  what  had  been  your  experience  ?  A.  I 
worked  in  a  shop,  and  served  my  apprenticeship  in  a  machine  shop 
and  pattern  maker's. 

Q.    And  at  what  age  did  you  begin  that?     A.    Seventeen. 

Q.  Up  to  1861  had  you  had  any  practical  experience  whatever  in 
the  construction  of  bridges?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Hewins  is  now,  the  gentleman  who 
built  this  truss?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  he  is  here  in  this  room. 

Q.  Did  you  have  charge  of  the  making  of  this  contract  for  the 
building  of  the  bridge  in  1876?  A.  I  simply  attended  to  the  matter, 
and  then  in  consultation  with  the  superintendent  of  the  road  it  was 
decided  what  we  should  do. 

Q.  Who  drew  the  specifications?  A.  Mr.  Hewins,  I  suppose. 
His  name  is  signed  to  them. 

Q.  Did  you  have  charge  of  the  specifications  and  supervise  that 
part  of  the  business  ?     A.   I  had  them  left  with  me. 

Q.    And  the  whole  contract  was  in   your  hands  to  complete  with 
Mr.  Hewins,  in  consultation  with  your  brother?     A.    Not  my  brother. 
Q.   What  relation  is  Mr.  Folsom,  the  superintendent,  to  you?     A. 
He  may  be  a  very  distant  relation,  with  eight  or  ten  generations  be- 
tween ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  He  isn't  related  toj'ou?  A.  We  both  started  from  the  same 
branch. 


APPENDIX.  117 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     You  were  n  mt  of 

the  relationship?    A.   Not  at  all.     He  was  a  Btra  when  I 

met  him  on  the  road. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Williams.)     At  that  time  did  yon  submit  tin 
tract  or  specifications  to  any  engineer?      \.    \    .  b!t. 

Q.   Or  practical  bridge  builder?     A.   The  01 
Bridge  Company  figured  on  the  same  thing. 

Q.   That  was  in  1871  ?    A.    No,— on  this  particular  brl 

Q.  And  to  no  one  else,  no  one  representing  your  railroad?  A.  I 
don't  remember  doing  it. 

Q.    When  the  test  was  made  which  you  witnessed  roursel 
was  present?    A.    Mr.  Hewina  and  two  or  throe  of  my  men. 

Q.   No  bridge  engineer?     A.    I    don't   remember  of  any  one  being 
there.     It  seems  to  me  the  superintendent  was  there,  and   Mr.  B 
aids,  the  master  mechanic. 

Q.    Since  that   time,  as  far   as   you   know,  has  any  brii_ 
examined  that  bridge?     A.    I  don't  know  as  there  has, 

<>.  How  many  times  has  your  attention  been  called  to  the  feeling 
of  the  community  about  the  safety  of  that  bridge?  A.  I  don't  know- 
that  it  was  ever  called  particularly. 

Q.    Are  you  not  aware   that   there  has  been  ',  of  timidity 

in  the  minds  of  people  who  travel  on  the  branch  in  regard  to  the 
safety  of  that  bridge?  A.  No.  As  I  say.  1  have  beard  casual  re- 
marks now  and  then  from  some  people  travelling  on  foot  over  the 
road  that  it  was  not  a  safe  bridge  ;  but  it  was  simply  from  walking 
over  it,  as  I  understood  it. 

Q.  Have  you  been  informed  more  than  once  of  nuts  falling  from 
that  bridge?  A.  I  don't  remember  whether  I  have  more  thai 
or  not,  —  once  certainly ;  not  falling  from  the  bridge,  bnt  that  they 
were  off  of  the  bridge.  I  have  found  some  of  them  partly  turn< 
the  boys  could  not  get  them  completely  off,  where  they  nsed  I  I 
piece  of  stone  and  bruised  them  up  in  trying  to  get  the 
Bnt  they  did  not  amount  to  much  more  than  ornaments  of  the  b 
that  was  all  you  could  say  about  them  or  the  effect  of  them. 

Q.    In  inspecting  the  bridge,  as  you  Bay  you  have  done. 
able  to  get  under  the  iloor  beams,  so  as  to  inspect  the  condition  of 
the  beams  and   the  hangers  upon  which  the  floor  bean 
pended?    A.    No;    I   have   aever  looked   at    that    partlculai 
particularly,  because  it  was  all  completely  bidden  In  there 

<>.    What  inspection  of  the  north  side, or  tb 
called  it  here,  of  the  bridge  did  you  actually  make  in  February? 
A.    I  have  Btated  it. 

Mr.  Williams.    I  and 
course. 


118  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  Chairman.    No  ;  he  described  exactly  what  he  did  in  February; 

Mr.  Williams.  That  was  the  question,  but  I  understood  him  to 
state  in  his  answer  what  he  usually  did. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman. )  Was  what  3-011  described  what  3'ou  did  in 
February  ?  A.I  crawled  down  under  the  work  and  looked  the  thing 
over. 

Q.  One  moment.  You  described,  a  little  while  ago,  an  examina- 
tion of  the  west  truss  of  the  bridge.  Was  that  a  description  of  what 
you  did  at  the  last  examination,  or  was  it  a  description  of  what  you 
generally  do?  A.  That  was  what  I  did  at  the  last  examination,  and 
what  I  generally  do. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  What  part  of  the  hangers  on  which  the 
floor  timbers  were  suspended  was  exposed  to  view  ;  any  part?  A.  A 
very  small  part  of  them,  as  I  remember  it. 

Q.  How  much?  A.  Well,  there  couldn't  have  been  but  very  little, 
because  there  was  a  casting  there  that  steadied  the  post  that  was 
under  the  hanger. 

Q.  The  casting  on  top  of  the  post  that  ran  down  to  the  post  chord, 
—  how  deep  was  that  casting?  A.  I  don't  remember ;  ma}*  be  three 
or  four  inches,  something  like  that.  I  don't  remember  now  just  the 
shape  of  it. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  casting  at  the  bottom  which  concealed  the 
lower  part  of  the  hanger?  A.  Well,  it  was  the  casting  that  was  on 
top  ot  the  post  that  came  under  that  point. 

Q.  In  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Chairman  respecting  the  rivet- 
ing of  the  post  to  the  compression  chord,  did  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  there  was  any  riveting  to  connect  the  chord  and  the  joint.  A. 
Lugs. 

Q.  You  do  not  call  those  rivets,  do  you?  Those  were  simply  to 
keep  the  chord  in  the  socket,  were  they  not?  A.  Yes  ;  but  they  were 
riveted  to  the  main  part,  I  remember. 

Q.  Were  they  riveted  to  a  joint?  A.  Not  to  a  joint;  they  were 
riveted  to  the  wrought-iron  part  of  the  structure,  and  inserted  into 
the  cast-iron  part  to  keep  it  in  place  and  steady  it. 

Q.  So  there  was  nothing  to  hold  the  compression  chord  in  place  in 
that  casting  except  pressure ?     A.    Except  pressure. 

Q.  Now,  is  it  not  true  that  in  case  of  lateral  pressure  enough  to 
drive  the  truss  out,  there  was  nothing  to  hold  either  the  post  or  the 
compression  chord  in  its  socket  in  the  joint?     A.    Only  those  ears. 

Q.  That  wouldn't  be  sufficient  in  case  of  a  hard  blow  on  the  side  of 
the  truss,  would  it?  A.  The  bridge  would  be  destroyed,  I  think, 
before  they  could  be  moved. 

Q.  Would  not  that  be  the  first  thing  that  would  occur,  the  driving 
of  the  post  and  the  compression  chord  out  of  that  joint  ?    A.   Not 


APPENDIX.  119 

unless  there  was  something  bearing  against  some  of  the  other  members 
to  hold  them  in  position,  allowing  that  to  be  pushed  out.  There  is 
nothing  that  I  can  conceive  of  that  would  hohl  them  in  position  and 
allow  it  to  be  pushed  out. 

Q.    Where  was  that  scar  which  you  have  Bpoken  of  indicat 
blow?     A.    It  was  on  top  of  that  joint  block. 

Q.    And  on  the  inside?     A.    On  the  inside. 

Q.  That  broke  that  casting,  did  it?  A.  It  broke  a  piece 
the  casting,  slivered  a  piece  off  of  several  inches. 

Q.  Have  you  inspected  the  hanger  which  was  suspended  from  the 
pin  in  that  joint?  A.  Only  as  it  lay  there  in  ruins.  I  was  there 
a  short  time  Monday.  I  was  busy  about  other  matters  and  I  simply 
saw  it  lying  there.  Of  course  I  expected  it  would  be  here  for  inspec- 
tion, and  gave  it  no  further  thought.  I  have  given  very  little  attention 
to  it,  because  I  have  been  almost  sick  in  my  bed  for  the  last  fen 
weeks  ;  I  have  been  quite  ill. 

Q.    Did  you  inspect  the  ends  of  the  broken  section  at  that 
A.    Only  as  I  passed  along.     I  looked  at  it  casually,  did  Dot  examine 
it  closely,  as  I  intended  to  look  at  it  more  closely,  but  have  not  been 
able  to  be  there  since. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  freight  trains  have  been  run  over  that 
West  Roxbury  branch?     A.   You  ask  me  too  much. 

Q.  How  many  years,  do  you  think?  A.  Well,  it  may  be  thirty 
years,  or  something  of  that  kind,  I  think. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  it  is  that  freight  trains  do  not  run  over  that 
branch?  A.  I  believe  there  is  no  occasion  to,  and  we  want  to  use 
the  branch  for  passenger  trains. 

Q.  You  have  freight  from  Roslindale,  do  you  not?  A.  I  don'1 
know  of  any  ;  there  is  no  side  track  there. 

Q.  You  have  a  side  track  at  Spring  Street,  running  down  to  the 
river,  and  get  ice  and  gravel  from  there?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  is  that  freight  taken  over  the  road?  A.  It  is  carried  to 
Dedham. 

Q.  Taken  to  Dedham,  and  then  it  goes  over  the  Readvillc  branch? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  further  is  that  than  it  would  be  to  go  over  the  Weal 
Roxbury  branch  from  that  point?  A.  It  depends  upon  where  it 
wants  to  go  and  the  convenience  of  the  time  between  trains  to  get  the 
material  round. 

Q.  Has  any  freight  train,  as  far  as  you  know,  run  over  thai 
in  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years?  A.  Nothing  that  1  kno* 
the  last  thirty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  for  it?  A.  No;  I  don't  know  of 
any  reason  further  than  for  convenience. 


120  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    Has  it  been  by  }'our  advice  ?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Or  at  your  suggestion  ?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  explanation  of  it?  A.  No,  sir;  if 
the  bridge  would  carry  a  locomotive,  it  would  carry  almost  any  freight 
train,  so  that  it  is  a  small  matter  to  be  considered. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  weight  of  a  car  full  of  passengers?  A.  I  do 
not ;  I  never  have  made  an  estimate  of  it.  I  don't  know  that  I  ever 
heard  it  estimated. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Whether  or  not  the  test  which  you  made 
of  the  bridge  showed  that  the  two  trusses  bore  their  proportional 
weight  equally,  or  whether  one  was  weaker  than  the  other?  A.  I 
don't  know  how  I  could  put  it.  I  simply  know  that  the  east  truss 
was  a  light  one,  not  designed  to  carry  so  much  of  a  load  as  the  west 
one  ;  but  I  never  made  any  calculation  in  regard  to  it.  The  test  was 
made  of  the  north  truss  ;  we  never  did  anything  about  the  other  one, 
only  what  little  weight  was  transmitted  through  the  floor  beams  over 
on  to  that. 

Q.  Were  the  two  engines  in  the  position  on  the  bridge  that  trains 
are  when  they  pass  over?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time  when  one  of  the  trusses  deflected  more  than  the 
other  under  the  strain?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  that  show  a  weakness?  A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  I  would  like  to  inquire,  for  it  has  not  been  brought  out,  how 
the  bridge  was  attached  to  its  foundation,  how  it  was  secured?  A. 
It  was  set  on  the  stone  and  I  think  pinned  with  pins,  —  simply  set  down 
to  keep  the  bridge  in  place.  Its  own  heft  holds  it  there  ordinarily, 
with  ju«,t  pins  set  in  the  stone  work,  set  in  brimstone.  That  is  our 
usual  way  of  setting  those  things. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  size  of  those  pins  was,  or  anything 
about  it?     A.    I  don't  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Hewins,  I  suppose,  can  give  the  best  infor- 
mation in  regard  to  that. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  say  that  the  nuts  that  were  removed 
by  the  boys  in  no  instance  affected  the  strength  of  the  bridge?  A. 
Not  one  particle. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  were  out  there  on  the  morning  of 
the  accident?  A.  I  was  there  a  few  minutes  after  the  accident.  I 
started  out  immediately  to  get  material  together  for  a  temporary 
structure  ;  but,  as  I  say,  for  the  last  week  or  two  I  have  been  ill  ami 
have  been  at  home.  I  haven't  been  able  to  attend  here,  and  have 
not  been  out  there  since,  only  a  little  while  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examination  at  that  time?  A.  I  only  made 
a  casual  one.    'I  supposed  that  I  should  get  a  better  chance  when  they 


APPENDIX.  I2J 

got  some  of  the  wreckage  out  of  the  way.     I  haven't  been  able  to  be 

there  since. 

Q.  You  saw  this  block?  A.  [  saw  that  block  there  that  afternoon, 
ami  Bpoke  to  a  gentleman  about  it  who  was  looking  over  tin-  matter. 
1  -aw  the  hangers  in  connection  with  the  block  at  that  time. 

Q.   Anything  else?       A.    [  don't  remember  of  seeing  any thii 
of  any  consequence  at  all,  or  that  would  be  of  any  note  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  there  that  gave  you  any  idea  as  to  what 
the  cause  of  the  accident  was?  A.  Nothing,  only  as  I  formed  an 
opinion  in  my  own  mind.  When  1  went  ap  to  the  wreck  I  noticed 
that   the   locomotive  and    three    ears    had   gon< 

those  cars  had  separated  and  were  terribly  injured  :  and  yel  they  had 
gone  over  on  to  the  abutment  where  it  was  on  the  earth.  And  I  aaw 
the  superintendent  just  then,  and  I  told  him  it  wa-  not  the  failure  of 
the  bridge  that  let  this  train  down,  —  "  there  i-  proof  positive."  And. 
says  I.  "It  would  be  well  for  as  to  have  photographs  taken  of  the 
thing  as  it  is,  wouldn't  it?"  He  said,  ••  Yes,  have  it  done."  And  I 
sent  a  man  immediately  to  get  a  photographer,  who  took  these  pictures. 
And  in  thinking  and  studying  the  matter  over,  I  can't  Bee  an. 
way  than  derailment,  from  some  cause,  I  can't  say  what,  that  canted 
the  destruction  of  the  bridge.  It  was  evidently  the  falling  of  the 
cars  over  that  carried  the  bridge  with  them. 

Q.  You  say  the  engine  and  three  cars  got  over  the  bridge  ;  and 
when  do  you  think  the  trucks  of  the  three  cars  were  drawn  from 
under  them?  A.  That  is  more  than  I  can  till  you,  but  it  Btruck  me 
very  forcibly,  from  the  fact  that  those  three  ears  were  over  there  with 
the  engine,  that  the  bridge  had  not  given  way  until  somethii 
had  caused  it  after  those  three  car-  bad  passed.  It  must  be,  from  the 
position  in  which  the  cars  were  in  the  wreck  below,  that  they  pulled 
the  bridge  over  with  them,  —  from  just  a  casual  observation.  A-  I 
said,  I  Stopped  tin  re  only  a  few  moments. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  those  trucks  u,  ,v  drawn  out  of  place  on  the 
bridge?  A.  I  think  it  must  have  been  somewhere  near  the  end  of 
the  bridge. 

Q.   Was  it  not  exactly  at  the  end  of  the  bridge?     A.    ' 
how  that  was.  but  from  the  construction  of  the  bridge,  the  Btringen 
running  up  to  the  abutn  '  ■<•}  do  there,  certainly  it  co 

have  been  a  breakage  when  those  were  under  the  bridge  there.     The 
engineer  Btated  that  he  felt  a  shock  after  his  i  ;ht  up,  but  I 

think  that  must  have  been  when  the  breaking  apart  of  I 

place. 

Q.    Supp.sin_r  that  the  hangers  supporting  that  cr.  .-s-b    m; 
that  cross-beam  down,  whal   would   it   have  rested  open f     I 

part  here  would   have   borne    part  of  the   ttirust,  it  would  ha\ 


122  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

what  it  could  stand,  and  consequently  those  stringers  would  simply 
have  gone  down  like  that  (suddenly) ,  and  let  everything  go  down  with 
the  bridge.  The  ends  of  the  stringers  rested  on  the  flooring,  and  if 
that  hanger  that  supports  that  had  given  out  entirely,  there  is  nothing 
there  to  prevent  dropping  that  down  perpendicularly,  except  a  small 
post  that  is  under  it. 

Recess  until  two  o'clock. 


AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

Testimony  of  Edmund  H,  Hewins. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence?  A.  625  Tremont 
Street,  Boston. 

Q.    What  is  your  age?     A.    Forty-one. 

Q.    You  were  the  builder  of  this  bridge?     A.    A  portion  of  it. 

Q.  Please  describe,  as  fully  as  y<  u  can,  your  whole  connection 
with  it,  in  your  own  words?  A.  It  is  so  long  ago  that  I  don't  know 
whether  I  can  remember  all  that  you  would  like  to  hear,  but  the  con- 
tract required  me  to  build  a  truss  to  be  placed  upon  the  westerly  side 
of  the  bridge. 

Q.  That  is  the  side  nearest  Boston  ?  A.  The  side  nearest  Boston  ; 
replacing  an  iron  truss  which  had  been  there  for  some  years,  which 
truss  wras  to  be  placed  upon  the  east  side  of  the  bridge,  and  I  was  to 
furnish  the  floor  system.  That  was  done  in  the  spring  or  early 
summer  of  1876. 

Q.  Go  on  and  describe  more  in  detail  what  you  did.  Were  you 
doing  business  for  yourself,  or  were  you  representing  a  company? 
A.    I  was  in  business  for  myself. 

Q.  How  about  the  Metropolitan  Company?  A.  It  was  my  inten- 
tion at  that  time  to  organize  a  bridge  compan}*,  and  I  commenced 
under  that  name  by  myself,  until  such  time  as  the  organization  should 
be  made,  which  was  never  consummated. 

Q.  Go  on  and  tell  us  about  the  bridge  ;  where  the  work  was  done, 
how  it  was  done,  the  character  of  the  bridge,  the  nature  of  its  con- 
struction, etc.  Perhaps  you  had  better  begin,  and  state,  in  the  first 
place,  your  experience  as  a  bridge  builder.  A.  My  first  experience 
in  building  iron  bridges  was  with  the  Detroit  Bridge  &  Iron  Works, 
Detroit,  Michigan. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  What  j-ear?  A.  I  think  it  was  1863; 
and  my  experience  has  been  from  then  until  —  lam  not  sure  this 


APPENDIX. 

bridge  wasn't  the  last  that  I  built.     Since  then  I  have  acted  oc< 
ally  as  consulting  engineer. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Did  you    have    a  scientific  edoi 

A.    Yes,  sir;   at  the  Lawrence  Scientific  School,  at  Cain!' 

Q.    Full  course?     A.   No,  sir  ;   partial. 

Q.    What  was  your  course,  then?     A.    I  was  tin  I  r  only. 

Q.    What  year  was  that?     A.    I  am  not  sine,  hut  I  think    it  was 
18G2-1863.     From  there  I  went  to  Detroit. 

Q.    How  long  were  3-011  with  the  Detroit  Bridge  0,  pany? 

A.    Well,  I  don't  recollect ;  but  several  years. 

Q.    What  were  you  doing  there?      A.    I   designed   their  bridges, 
proportioned  them,  and  I  made  some  portions  of  the  dra* 

Q.    Did  you  do  that  all  the  time  that  you  were  there?     A.    Yes, 
sir. 

Q.    Do  you  remember  any  bridges  that  you  designed  at  that  time? 
A.    Well,  there  was  one   drawbridge  across  the    Mississippi    I 
where  the  C.  B.  &  Q.  Railroad  crosses,  —  Clinton  on  one  Bide  aid 
Fulton  on  the  other. 

Q.    How  long  did  that  stand?     A.    It  is  standing  now,  I  suppose. 
That  was  at  the  time  the  longest  drawbridge,  I  think,  in  the  world. 
Some  have  been  built  longer  since.     There  were  a  great  many 
on  the  Illinois  Central  and  the  C.  B.  &  Q.,  and  other  roads  through 
the  Western  States. 

Q.    Did  you  build  any  bridges  in   Massachusetts  when  you  were 
with  the  Detroit  Bridge  &  Iron  "Works?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.   Then  you  left  the  Detroit  Bridge  &  Eron  Woik^  at  what  time? 
A.    I  don't  recollect  the  date. 

Q.   You  were  there  about  three  years,  yon  say?    A.    I  - 
but  I  don't  recollect  just  how  many  it  was  ;  I  could  not  tell  even  ap- 
proximately. 

Q.    What  did  you  do  after  you  left  there?     A.    M\ 
that  after  I  left  there  I  went  South   for  one  winter,  and  then  :« 
North,  and  afterwards  was  employed  by  the  Moseley    Iron    Building 
Works  for  some  time,  and  after  that  by  the  N 
pany. 

Q.    How  long  with  each?     A.    I  could  not  tell  fro 

<v>.    In  what  capacity  were  you  with  those  two  oompanii  sf      \.    A- 
engineer. 

Q.    Then   what   did    you   do?     A.    Then,  after  that   I    bulll 
work  on   my  own   account;   at   hast,  until   the   tin. 
constructed. 

Q.    You  mean   that  you  built  bridges   OU  your  own   m  A. 

Yes,  sir. 


124  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Were  an}'  of  those  in  Massachusetts  ?  A.  I  think  not ;  I  don't 
recollect  one  in  Massachusetts. 

Q.  How  man}'  do  you  think  you  built  before  you  built  this  one? 
A.  I  could  not  tell.  My  business  was  building  bridges  and  roofs, 
which  were  of  a  similar  nature. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  built  half  a  dozen  or  a  dozen  bridges? 
A.   Well,  I  should  not  think  it  was  more  than  half  a  dozen. 

Q.  Was  it  as  many  as  half  a  dozen  ?  A.  I  think  there  must  have 
been  somewhere  in  that  neighborhood. 

Q.  Now,  coming  down  to  this  bridge,  give  us  as  full  a  description 
of  that  as  you  can :  where  you  had  the  work  done,  how  it  was 
done,  and  the  design  of  the  bridge  and  the  method  of  construction? 
A.  The  main  ties,  the  main  tension  ties  of  the  bridge,  were  furnished 
by  the  Phoenix  Iron  Works.  The  balance  of  the  material  of  the 
bridge  was  furnished  by,  and  the  work  done  in,  the  shops  of  the  Tren- 
ton Iron  Company. 

Q.  Why  was  part  of  it  made  in  one  place  and  part  in  another? 
A.    The  main  tension  bars  — 

Q.  Is  that  the  lower  chord  ?  A.  The  lower  chord  constitutes  a 
part  of  it. 

Q.  What  do  constitute  the  tension  bars?  A.  The  lower  chord 
and  the  main  ties  ;  not  only  of  the  main  truss  of  the  bridge,  but  of 
the  trusses  of  the  floor  beams  and  the  stringers  or  stringer  truss. 

Q.    Those  were  made  at  the  Phoenix  Iron  Works?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  are  they?  A.  Phamixville,  Pa.  Those  eyes  are 
forged  by  a  hydraulic  press. 

Q.  What  was  the  reason  that  you  got  them  made  there  ?  A.  The 
Trenton  Iron  Works  had  no  facilities  for  doing  that  work. 

Q.  And  you  sent  those  to  the  Phoenix  Iron  Works  for  that  pur- 
pose,— because  you  thought  eyes  forged  in  that  way  were  better.  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Then  the  rest  was  made  by  the  Trenton  Iron  Company,  from 
designs  drawn  by  you?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  describe  the  method  of  construction  and  its  pe- 
culiarities, if  any  ?  A.  Well,  every  bridge,  almost,  has  peculiarities  of 
its  own.  This  bridge  has  a  very  sharp  skew.  If  I  remember  cor- 
rectly, an  angle  of  twenty-one  degrees.  The  centre  of  the  truss  on 
one  side  is  exactly  opposite  the  end  of  the  truss  on  the  other  side. 
The  theoretical  length  of  the  span  was  104  feet ;  the  theoretical  depth 
of  the  truss  twenty-six  feet,  divided  into  four  panels  at  each  point,  a 
floor-beam  truss  extending  across  the  bridge,  at  right  angles  ;  the 
other  ends  of  the  floor-beam  trusses  resting  on  the  opposite  truss  or 
on  the  abutment ;  upon  the  floor-beam  trusses  were  the  stringer 
trusses,   each  of  which  was  directly  under  one  of  the  rails.     The 


APPENDIX.  185 

bridge  was  proportioned  to  carry  an  evenly  distributed  k»ad  of 
pounds  per  lineal  foot  of  track,  and  a  concentrated  load  of  I  <l<'n"t 
recollect  how  much,  on  the  drivers,  but  an  additional  load;  with  a 
strain  on  no  part  of  the  bridge  tensionally  of  any  more  than  10.000 
pounds  per  square  inch,  and  on  no  compression  member  of  more  than 
a  like  amount,  making  allowance  for  bending  strain  according  I 
don's  formula.  The  specifications,  which  I  heard  read  here  to-day  for 
the  first  time  since,  perhaps  cover  all  of  these  points.  The  bridge 
was  built  according  to  those  specifications  ami  in  conformity  with 
them.  After  the  bridge  was  completed  it  was  tested  by  locomotives 
in  several  different  waj'S.  Locomotives  running  with  the  tenders  on 
and  with  the  tenders  off,  and  also  running  at  speed.  My  recollection 
is  that  the  maximum  deflection  obtained  under  all  the  tests  which 
were  made  with  the  two  heaviest  locomotives  that  were  upon  the  road, 
—  I  think  the  maximum  deflection  was  about  six-tenths  of  an  inch,  as 
I  recollect  it.  Those  trusses  received  and  supported  either  t line- 
fourths  or  four-fifths,  I  forget  which,  of  the  total  load  ;  the  other 
truss  taking  either  one-fourth  or  one-fifth. 

Q.  Go  on  and  describe  the  peculiarities  of  the  construction  of  this 
bridge,  if  it  was  peculiar?  A.  I  think  I  have  ;  I  do  not  recollect  any 
other  peculiarities  of  the  bridge.  Perhaps  I  have  not  explained  them 
as  much  in  detail  as  you  would  like  ;  but  if  you  will  indicate  any 
particular  points,  I  should  be  glad  to  explain  them. 

Q.    Did  you  ever  build  a  bridge  before  with  two  kinds  of  ti 
with  a  rectangular  truss  on  one  side,  and  this  kind  of  truss  on  the 
other?    A.   No,  I  never  did. 

Q.   Were,there  any  difficulties  attendant  upon  that?    A.    No,  sir. 
().    Did  you  have  any  question  about  the  propriety  of  doing  it? 
A.    Not  the  slightest. 

Q,  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Had  it  been  done  before,  that  you  know  of? 
A.    No.  ' 

Q.    Since?     A.    I  don't  know  that  it  has. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  ever  build,  before  or  since,  a 
bridge  so  much  askew  as  this?  A.  Well,  1  think  I  must  have,  though 
I  don't  recollect  of  any  individual  instance. 

().    What  are  the  difficulties  to  be  surmounted  in  building  a 
bridge,  as  it  is  called?    A.   It  is  more  bother,  and  may  o  st  BOmewhat 
more  to  do. 

Q.  Well,  about  the  danger  of  breakage,  or  anything  of  that  sort? 
A.    There  is  no  more  danger  in  a  skew  I  nidge  than  in  a  square 

( ).  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  it  not  a  positive  defect  in  this  bridge 
that  that  "hip  block  was  made  of  cast  iron,  where  the  upper  chord  joins 
the  inclined  end  post?     A.    No,  sir. 


126 


BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER, 


Q.  I  understand  that  to  be  a  point  where  the  bridge  should  have 
been  strong?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  undoubtedly. 

Q.  It  was  made  of  cast  iron  ;  and  from  there  in  the  same  way?  A. 
Precisely. 

Q.    And  here  the  same?     A.    Precisely. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  All  those  corner  blocks  were  made  of  cast 
iron,  were  they  not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  was  thereof  cast  iron  besides?  A.  Nothing  except 
these  joint  blocks.  This  one  that  is  broken  is  to-day  just  as  good  for 
service  as  it  ever  was.  The  crack  that  is  in  it  does  not  disable  it  at 
all. 

Q.   This  piece  of  iron  is  not  a  part  of  it,  is  it  ?     A.   I  think  not. 

Q.   Do  you  know  where  that  came  in  ?     A.    I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  During  the  building  of  this  bridge  was  there  any  examination: 
made  by  you  or  anybody  else  at  the  furnaces  and  forges  where  this 
bridge  was  being  built,  to  test  it  in  any  other  way?  A.  Only  ty 
examination. 

Q.    Did  you  examine  it?     A.    Not  every  part  of  it. 

Q.  Is  it  not  customary  for  first-class  bridge  builders  to  have  every 
portion  of  a  bridge  tested?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  so,  Mr.  Hewins?  A.  The  Phoenix  Iron  Company,  one 
of  the  largest  bridge  builders  in  the  world,  perhaps,  do  not  do  it. 

Q.  Do  not  first-class  railroads  do  it?  A.  Well,  they  usually  have 
inspectors  there  at  the  time. 

Q.  Precisely,  and  they  see  the  iron?  A.  They  see  the  iron, 
have  seen  inspectors  there  frequently,  and  in  every  case  that  I  have 
ever  seen,  the  one  who  remained  there  constantly  was  one  who  simply 
had  instructions  to  do  certain  things,  but  had  no  judgment  of  his 
own. 

Q.  Did  the  Boston  &  Providence  road  have  any  of  their  employees 
or  officers  on  the  ground  to  examine  this  bridge  as  it  was  being  built: 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Left  it  entirely  to  you?    A.   Yes,  sir,  as  far  as  I  know. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  size  of  the  lateral  and  vertical  braces  of  the 
truss?  A.  No,  sir.  Those  were  shown  on  the  tracing  you  had  here 
this  morning. 

Q.  How  were  they  fastened?  A.  The  lateral  bracing  consistec 
of  rods  which  passed  through  holes  in  the  casting,  and  there  wei 
nuts  placed  on  the  ends  of  the  lateral  braces. 

Q.    Won't  you  look  at  that?     (Showing  a   piece  of  iron  markc 

"A.")     Do   you  call   that  good   iron?     A.     That  came   from  the 

original  truss  that  was  put  there,  I  suppose.     I  should  call  that  prettj 

good  iron.     That  is  plate  iron  ;  that  is  T  iron,  with  some  shape  iroi 

Q.   You  give  that  as  your  opinion,  that  it  is  good  iron  ?    A.   Yes 


APPENDIX. 

sir,  I  think  that  is  pretty  good   iron?     A.    The   plate   In 
than  the  shaped. 

Q.    You  would  not  call  that  first-class  iron  to  put  in  a  bridge, would 
you,  Mr.  Hewins?     A.   Well,  I  don't  think  that  is  as  good  Bha|  ■ 
as  is  made  in  this  country.     That  was  not  made  in  this  country. 

Q.  If  the  iron  had  been  thoroughly  inspected  you  would  Dot  have 
allowed  that  to  have  gone  by,  would  you?  A.  I  did  not  put  that 
into  the  bridge. 

Q.    Are  you  sure  of  that?     A.    It  is  possible  that    that  came 
the  upper  chord  of  the  new  truss. 

Q.    What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this,  whether  that   bridge  was  not  in- 
spected improperly  when  it  was  built?     It  was  put  up  without  ii 
tion,  was  it  not?    Am  I  right  or  wrong?    A.   You  apply  the  question 
to  this  piece,  for  instance? 

Q.    No,  sir,  to  the  whole  bridge.     A.    It  was  not  inspected, 
as  I  know,  by  the  railroad. 

Q.    Did  you  inspect  it?     A.    I  inspected  it  as  much  as  anv  I 
arc  in  specie' 1. 

Q.  How  much  is  that?  A.  Well,  I  was  at  the  works  from  time 
to  time, — I  don't  know  how  often,  but  frequently,  —  and  examined  it 
myself,  and  it  was  examined  by  the  foreman  of  the  works. 

Q.  Did  you  take  pains  to  test  any  portions  of  it?  A.  Only  by 
examination. 

Q.   It  was  not  put  through  any  test?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    (By  Mr.  Stevens.)      Was  any  portion  of  that  bridge  which  you 
put  up  subject  to  any  test?     A.    Only  by  examination. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  put  to  mu- 
test at  the  iron  works?     A.    I  don't  think  it  was. 

Q.    Did  you  suppose  it  was  at  that  time?     A.    No,  sir.     There  is 
one  thing,  which,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  correct  now.     When   I 
that  that  beam  was  not  made  in  this  country,  I   BUpposed  it  : 
to  the  eastern  truss.     As  it  belongs  to  the  western  truss,  it  wac 
by  the  Trenton  Iron  "Works. 

Q.   In  the  building  of  thia  bridge,  as  I  understand,  t; 
iron  block  up  here,  and  in  connection  with  it  are  milar  to 

those  upon  which  this  cross-beam  depends.     The  support  oft! 
ing  of  the  bridge  depends  upon  that  cross-beam,  does  it   I 

Q.  And  that  depends  for  its  support  on  the  westerly  end  upon 
these  hangers?     A.    Ye-. 

Q.    Supported  somewhat  in  addition  by  that  upright  beam 
A.    That  beam  is  not  put  there  for  that  pur]  it  adds 

something  to  it,  but  it  is  not  there  for  that  purp 


128  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Those  hangers  similar  to  these,  were  the}'  in  a  position  where 
they  could  have  been  examined?     A.    Only- partially. 

Q.  What  portion  of  them  could  have  been  examined  from  time  to 
time?     A.    The  lower  end,  or  eye,  could  be  seen  from  the  outside. 

Q.  Where  they  are  painted  there?  A.  Where  they  are  painted, 
and,  of  course,  somewhat  beyond,  but  not  much,  probably. 

Q.  Tben  the  bridge  inspector,  in  looking  to  see  whether  these  were 
sound  or  not,  could  have  seen  practically  only  from  there  to  there? 
A.    Not  much  be}'ond  where  the  paint  is. 

Q.  How  customaiy  is  that  method  of  construction?  A.  Well,  in 
all  m}'  observation,  it  is  common. 

Q.    It  is  a  common  method  of  construction?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  a  common  method  of  construction  to  have  them,  and  have 
them  covered  up  to  such  an  extent  that  they  cannot  be  seen?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  In  the  light  of  what  you  see  here,  and  what  j-ou  have  seen  out 
there,  perhaps,  do  you  regard  that  as  a  correct  form  of  construction? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  To  put  those  on  and  cover  them  up  so  that  defects  in  them 
cannot  be  detected?  A.  Of  course  it  is  desirable  to  make  all  the 
parts  accessible  as  far  as  practicable,  but  I  do  not  consider  it  a 
necessit}'. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  impracticable  to  so  place  those  hangers  that  they 
could  have  been  seen,  or  to  have  so  built  the  bridge  that  they  could 
have  been  seen?  A.  Undoubtedly,  a  bridge  could  have  been  built 
of  an  entirely  different  form. 

Q.  No;  but  practically  in  the  present  form?  A.  Well,  I  would 
not  undertake  to  say  that  it  was  not  possible  to  make  it  so  that  it 
could  have  been  seen  to  a  greater  extent  than  it  was,  but  I  did  not 
find  any  wa}T  at  the  time  to  do  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  try,  did  }-ou?  Did  not  think  of  it?  Is  that  it? 
A. '  No,  it  is  not  fair  to  say  that. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  it  was  necessaiy,  did  you?  A.  I  went  as 
far  as  I  thought  was  necessary. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  see  any  of  those 
things,  evidently,  because  you  only  left  out  a  little  piece  of  one  end. 
A.  Of  course  it  is  desirable  to  be  able  to  see  all  that  3-011  can  without 
sacrificing  other  and  perhaps  controlling  points,  and  in  designing  those 
I  thought  I  had  struck  the  happy  medium. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  spoke  of  having  been  connected  with 
the  Moseley  Bridge  Company.  How  long  ago  was  that?  A.  I  was 
with  them,  if  I  recollect  right,  about  a  year  before  they  went  out  oj 
business. 


APPENDIX.  LS9 

Q.   Were  you  with  them  while  they   were  successful  in  building 
bridges?     A.   They  were  oever  successful. 
Q.    Did  they  ever  have  any  break-down?    A.    I  don't  reoall  any. 
Q.    Von  don't  know  whether  they  had  or  doI       a.    No,  sir. 

(}.     Now.   I  want  to  know  how  you  got  this  contract  out  of  tl 

ton  &  Providence  Railroad.      What   were  yonr  relations  with   Mr. 
Fol8om,  the  superintendent,  or  Mr.   Folsom,  the  carpenter,  or  with 
any  one  else  connected  with  that  toad?     I  understand  that  th< 
proposals  for  a  bridge,  and  yon  were  the  successful  bidder.     Now, 
what  were  your  relations  with  anybody  connected  with  the  road,  -<> 

that  your  bid  happened  to  be  taken?  A.  I  did  not  have  any  relations 
with  them.  I  was  asked  to  make  them  a  proposal.  I  did  not  know 
of  their  issuing  invitations  for  proposals;  I  was  asked  verbally  to 
make  a  proposal. 

Q.    Who  asked  you?    A.   The  superintendent. 

Q.    Mr.  A.   A.   Folsom?     A.    That  is  my  recollection.     It    might 
have  been  Mr.  George  Folsom.  bnt  my  recollection  is  that  it  wi  -  m 
A.  A.  Folsom,  and  I  made  a  proposal  and  was  awarded  the  contract 

t).    Did  you  know  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom  before  that?      A. 

Q.   You  drew  the  plan  and  specifications?     A.    Yet 

Q.  It  was  put  entirely  into  your  hands?  A.  Well,  it  is  not  fair  to 
say  that  I  was  the  sole  author  of  the  specifications.  They  were  mad.' 
by  consultation,  of  course. 

<,'•  Consultation  with  whom?  A.  I  presume  principally  with  Mr. 
George  Folsom. 

Q.  Well,  how  did  you  do  it?  You  drew  a  plan  and  took  it  to  him 
for  his  approval ;  he  criticised  it  and  then  you  adopted  some  of  his 
Ideas,  —  is  that  it?  A.  The  first  thing  would  be  to  determine  the 
specifications,  undoubtedly,  although  I  cannot  recall  the  circumstances 

at  the  time  ;    the  amount   of  load    to    be    provided  for,  the  >train  t<>  l>e 

allowed  upon  the  iron,  were  matters  of  consultation  and  agreement, 

and  whoever  else  bid  upon  the  joh  Undoubtedly  had  the  same  consul- 
tation, and  when  they  had  agreed  a-  to  what  the  specifications  Bhoold 
he  then  it   was  put   in  our  proposals. 

Q.    How  do  you  suppose  you  happened  to  get  the  contract?     !'•• 

Cause  you  were  cheaper  than  any  one  else?      A.     I  don't  know. 

Q.    Your  relations  with  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom  were  nol  so  <  I"--  that 

he  would  naturally  hi'  in  your  favor,  WOUld  h-  :      A 

i  >.   s,,  that  you  drew  the  plan  of  this  peculiar  bridge  and  submit- 
ted it  to  them,  and  thej  adopted  it  after  consultation  with  M  r.  G 
Folsom,  and  you  put  it  up.     It  was  not   tested  during  construction 
and  only  tested  when  it  was  finished.     Am  I  Btra  ght  in  that 

meiit  ?      A.    That  is  right. 

q.    (Bj    the  Chairman.)     Mr.  Qewins,  what  was  the  reason  that 


130  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

the  centre  of  the  shaft  going  through  here  did  not  come  under  the 
centre  of  the  main  bar?  What  is  the  reason  that  the  centres  of  sup- 
port are  not  under  each  other?  A.  That  I  do  not  know.  I  cannot 
recall  why  they  were  put  so. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Could  you  not  recall  by  referring  to  your 
papers?  You  have  got  a  memorandum  of  the  whole  contract,  I  take 
it,  have  you  not?     A.    Oh,  yes. 

Q.  Would  they  have  been  stronger  if  the  centres  of  support  had 
been  under  each  other?     A.    Undoubtedly. 

Q.  Was  that  an  element  of  weakness  in  them  as  compared  with 
what  they  would  have  been  if  placed  centrally?  A.  Of  course  it  is 
an  element  of  weakness.  In  the  sense  in  which  perhaps  you  mean  to 
use  it,  no. 

Q.  Could  that  element  of  weakness  have  been  compensated  for  by 
stouter  iron?  A.  By  stouter  iron  than  would  have  been  required 
had  they  been  in  a  straight  line,  which  I  assume  to  have  been  the 
case,  although  I  do  not  recall  it  now. 

Q.  How  do  you  estimate  the  strength  of  one  of  these?  Are  there 
regular  formulas  for  it  ?  A.  Well,  the  sizes.  This  bar  in  its  middle, 
or  between  the  two  eyes,  is  in  direct  tension.  Of  course  the  strength 
of  the  bar  within  those  limits  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  get.  Its  strength 
in  the  eye  of  either  form  is  a  question  of  experiment.  I  have  tried 
them  in  testing  machines  perhaps  hundreds  of  times.  I  don't  know 
how  many. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  tried  exactly  these  eyes?  A.  I  don't  know 
about  exactly  those  eyes. 

Q.  How  did  you  arrive  at  the  proper  strength  of  those?  A.  By 
experiments  which  I  had  made  before  with  testing  machines.  I  don't 
recollect  what  the  rule  was  now,  but  it  was  adding,  I  suppose,  some 
percentage  to  what  it  would  otherwise  be. 

Q.  Is  that  a  fresh  break  or  old  break  on  that  hanger?  A.  I  can- 
not tell.  Monday,  when  I  examined  it  at  the  bridge,  this  was  inside 
its  casting  and  I  did  not  then  know  that  there  was  any  crack  in  it, 
and  whether  the  rust  which  is  now  there  has  come  there  since  the 
disaster  or  before  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.    Is  that  where  it  was  welded  on?     A.    That  is  across  the  weld. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  a  perfect  weld?  A.  These  do  not  seem 
to  be  welded  down  into  the  neck  of  the  eye  thoroughly.  At  any 
rate,  they  have  opened  slightly  where  the  weld  was.  both  of  them. 
Beyond  it  seems  to  be  united  thoroughly. 

Q.  How  about  this?  A.  That  is  split,  but  whether  it  is  split 
through  the  weld  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Stevexs.)    Would  those  have  opened  had  they  been 


APPENDIX.  LSI 

perfect  welds?     A.  That  Bret  crack  on  the  lower  end  of  the  unbroken 
hanger  might  have  opened  if  it  had  been  ;i  perfect  weld. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)    To  what  kind  of  a  strain  is  that  break 

due?    A.    It  is  a  mere  question  of  opinion  ;  I  ran  give  yon  mine. 

Q.  Is  it  due  to  a  tension  spring  or  to  a  cross  spring?  A.  I  think 
it  was  an  enormous  leverage  on  the  Boor  beam  acting  upon  it  with  a 
very  short  bite  when  it  went  down  in  the  crash. 

Q.  A  leverage  in  what  direction ?  A.  For  instance:  represent  the 
main  truss,  if  you  please,  by  this  roll;  represent  the  Boor-beam  truss 
by  my  arm.  When  the  thing  went  down  there  was  an  enormous  lev- 
erage in  this  way.  which  we  Bhould  expect  to  tear  out  something.  It 
is  a  very  long  lever,  some  20  feet  long,  and  a  v.i  \  short  distance  from 
the   fulcrum   to   its  end.  a  few    inches  only,  which  would    increase   the 

leverage  forty  times  or  thereabouts.  I  should  expect  it  would  break 
something. 

Q.  Put  your  arm  in  there  and  show  how  it  would  work  that  way. 
A.  This  laid  vertically  in  the  bridge,  the  Boor  beam  horizontally, 
which  would  now  be  upright.  The  strain  of  the  lever  might  be  in 
either  direction,  this  way  or  that  way,  and  I  think  the  result  would  be 
the  same  either  way. 

Q.  Then  you  think  it  was  not  a  leverage  either  one  side  or  the 
other?     A.    You  mean,  longitudinally  with  the  bridge? 

A.  I  mean  tit, it  way.  A.  The  pin  is  too  short.  That  would  be  a 
leverage  produced  by  the  pin.  I  mean  a  leverage  produced  by  the 
floor  beam. 

Q.  Where  was  the  floor  beam  with  relation  to  those?  Between 
them?  A.  I  think  the  floor  beams  were  on  each  side  of  those, and 
these  were  bel  ween  the  pin-  going  through  the  bottom  end  of  the  links 
and  the  webs  of  the  floor  beams. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  make  a  drawing  showing  the  way 
in  which  you  think  that  part  was  arranged.  (The  witness  made  a 
drawing  as  requested.)     A.   aa  are  the  bottom  ends  of  these  links, 

and    there    they  are  vertical.      66  are  the  two  I    beams  which   compose 

the  floor  beam.     These  beams  are  reinforced   by  plates  cooe,  through 

which  passes  the  pin  '/. 

Q.  Passing  through  these  reinforcing  plates  and  also  through  the 
I  beams?  A.  Through  the  I  beams  on  the  lower  ends  of  the  links 
„-/.  ee  are  the  main  ties  of  the  door  beam  tin-.  The  joint  block 
came  down  and  re-ted  on  the  top  of  these  Boor  beams  bb,  and  extended 
for  perhaps  a  foot  (1  don't   know  what   the  distant  iwise  of 

the  bridge;  so  that  the  other  end  of  the  floor  beam,  if  held  in  | 
and  the  truss  dropped  (which  amounts  to  the  game  thin-  as  taking 
hold  of  the  other  end  of  the  floor  beam  and  raisin-  or  lowering  It), 


132  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

having  a  bearing  against  the  cast-iron  block  and  the  pin,  would  pro- 
duce this  leverage,  which  should  break  something. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  bridge  since  the  accident?  A.  I  ex- 
amined it  on  Monday  morning. 

Q.  What  did  you  find?  A.  I  found  several  things  that  I  could 
not  understand  or  see  any  reason  for.  Of  course  I  found  these  links 
broken,  and  I  was  surprised  to  find  the  floor  beam  secured  to  the  block 
at  one  end.  I  should  have  expected  that  they  would  both  have  broken 
away  somehow. 

Q.  Where  do  you  mean?  At  this  end  of  this  block?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  The  floor  beam  remained  attached  to  the  block  at  the  southern 
end  in  the  upper  chord.  At  the  Boston  end  it  was  broken,  as  these 
links  show.  Those  two  at  the  Boston  end  came  from  the  block  that 
shows  where  something  has  given  it  an  awful  blow,  —  a  blow  sufficient 
to  have  overturned  the  whole  bridge,  surely.  On  the  easterly  side  of 
the  bridge  there  was  one  vertical  post  which  was  buckled,  as  though 
it  had  been  buckled  by  a  sheer  compressive  strain.  (Witness  pointed 
out  the  post  to  which  he  referred  on  a  small  photograph.)  I  think 
this  was  the  post  on  which  the  northern  floor  beam  rested  in  the 
easterly  truss.  I  won't  be  quite  sure  that  this  is  the  one,  but  I  think 
so.     That  post  was  buckled. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  buckled  "  ?  A.  Call  this  the  post ;  the 
weight  pressing  down  upon  it  buckled  it  up  in  this  way.  There  was 
no  mark  of  anything  having  hit  sideways  to  cause  it  that  I  could  find. 
The  next  joint  towards  Boston  on  the  same  side  in  the  upper  chord 
was  broken  down.  I  could  not  account  for  that,  because  there  is  no 
weight  upon  it,  —  nothing  rested  upon  it.  I  do  not  recollect  any  thing- 
else,  but  I  have  an  impression  that  there  was  something  else  that  I 
could  not  understand. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  If  there  was  no  weight  resting  on  it,  and 
it  had  cracked  and  rusted,  could  it  not  have  been  broken  by  the 
weight  of  the  train  at  that  particular  moment?  A.  I  should  not 
properly  say  there  was  no  weight  resting  upon  it. 

Q.  There  was  no  way  of  examining  it ;  but  we  find,  after  the  bridge 
has  broken  down,  that  it  had  rusted,  showing  an  old  crack?  A.  I 
don't  know  whether  that  was  rusted  at  that  point. 

Q.  Suppose  it  was  for  the  time  being,  would  not  the  weight  of  the 
train  coming  upon  it  at  that  moment  break  that  joint  up  in  that  box 
that  could  not  be  opened  and  could  not  be  inspected?  A.  Not  until 
something  else  went  first.  That  was  not  in  the  joint  block  at  all.  I 
am  speaking  of  the  east  side. 

Q.  It  is  one  of  those  heavy  upright  beams  that  you  say  buckled? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  the  one  directly  under  that  fioor  beam.  It  was 
buckled  up  at  some  point  below  its  centre.     The  upper  chord  was 


APPENDIX.  18S 

broken  at  the  nexl  post,  broken  righl  overhand  that  post  broken  right 

down. 

Q.    What  was  the  condition,  after  the  accident,  of  this  truss!     a 
All  smashed  op.     I  ought  not  to  say  that;  but   it  irai  all  down, of 
course. 

A.    Was  not  everything  bent  and  twisted?     A.   Oh,  no. 

C>.  (By  Mr.  StevbnS.)  Could  it  have  struck  that  abutment  or 
anything  of  thai  sort?  A.  It  was  tOO  far  away  from  it.  It  was 
away  out  in  the  road. 

<^.  That  one  that  buckled  supported  the  thiol  beam  which  cams 
from  the  first  joint  on  the  other  truss?  a.  fee,  Bir.  I  remember 
that  is  the  one,  because  I  saw  the  mark  on  the  top  where  the  casting, 
which  is  shown  on  this  small  photograph,  was  torn  off.  That  possibly 
might  account  for  the  fact  of  that  floor  beam  not  breaking  loose  from 
the  joint  block  at  the  other  end.  That  floor  beam  at  the  other  end 
was  in  this  identical  pair  of  links. 

Q.  Now  that  you  see  the  results  of  the  accident,  what  is  your  Opin- 
ion in  regard  to  the  nature  and  cause  of  it?  A.  Well,  I  am  unable 
to  definitely  make  up  my  mind  as  to  what  the  actual  cause  was.  In 
general,  I  believe  it  must  have  been  either  derailment,  or  the  break- 
ing of  some  part  of  the  rolling  stock,  which  let  it  down  on  to  the 
upper  chord,  and  in  its  motion,  whatever  the  speed  was  going  towards 
Boston,  Btriking  that  joint  block  and  overturning  the  whole  thing.  I 
think  that  blow  would  have  done  it.  What  the  thing  was  that  broke 
and  let  the  car  down  I  can't  tell;  there  might  be  quite  a  number  of 
different  things.      I  have  no  opinion  about  that. 

Q.    Might  it  not  have  been  a  brake-bar?     A.    For  aught  I  know. 

Q.  The  brake-bar  does  not  go  outside  of  the  car?  A.  It  does 
not  project  as  tar  as  that. 

Q.   What  could  it  have  been,  then?    Could  it  have  been  anything 

except  derailment  under  that  theory?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  a 
derailment  would  have  carried  the  axle-boz  far  enough  over  — that  is, 
by  dropping  it  vertically  —  to  have  hit  it.  but  if  the  car  was  off  the 
track  sideways  it  could  undoubtedly  have  don< 

(  >.  How  do  you  mean,  oil  the  track  BidewajS?  A.  Well,  perpen- 
dicular to  the  direction  of  the  track  horizontally. 

Q.     You    mean    outside   of    the    iron    a    considerable    distance  \ 

Well,  it  woidd  not  have  to  go  vei  \   far;  just  how  far  it  would 

go  I  don't  recollect. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Admitting  that  for  a  moment,  if  the 
bridge  wsa   properly  constructed,  with   a   proper  floor  system   and 

guard  rails,  ought  DOl   the  train  to  have  gOBS  Off  and  not    hop 

the  bridge?    A.    If  you  can  get   a  train  off  the  track  on  a  bi 

that  it  shall  not  strike  any  of  the  main  supporting  parts  of  the  bridge, 


134  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

you  can  cany  it  across  safely,  —  if  you  can  steer  it  so  that  it  shall 
not  strike  an}'where. 

Q.  On  a  majority  of  railroads  you  can  steer  a  derailed  train  on  a 
bridge  perfectly,  can't  you?     A.    It  is  a  pretty  hard  job  to  do. 

Q.    It  is  done?     A.    It  is  done  at  times. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  if  at  Clinton  a  train  should  run  off  the 
track  on  the  bridge,  it  would  put  that  bridge  through  into  the  river? 
A.  I  do,  most  certainly.  I  don't  know  what  would  prevent  it.  A 
train  would  not  have  to  go  very  far  off  the  track  before  it  would 
go  into  the  river. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  have  not  spoken  in  regard  to  the 
breaks  of  those  two  hangers.  What  do  those  suggest  to  your  mind? 
A.  I  thought  I  had  described  that  as  in  my  opinion  the  peculiar 
leverage  which  it  gets  from  the  floor  beam. 

Q.    The  further  hangers?     A.    The  same  thing. 

Q.  Are  those  fresh  breaks?  A.  I  think  so;  I  think  they  were 
broken  by  the  fall. 

Q.  How  soon  did  you  see  that  after  the  accident?  A.  I  saw  that 
Monday  afternoon.  I  went  out  on  the  quarter-past  three  train,  I 
think  it  was,  or  ten  minutes  past  three.  They  do  not  look  as  fresh 
now  as  they  did  then. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  think  that  was  broken  at  the  time  of  the  accident? 
A.  I  think  so.  I  examined  them  pretty  closely  on  Monday,  as 
closely  as  I  could  in  the  position  that  they  were,  and  satisfied  myself 
in  my  own  mind  that  that  was  a  fresh  break. 

Q.    Were  they  resting  in  water  at  that  time?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Was  it  raining  at  that  time?     A.    Not  while  I  was  there. 

Q.    Were  they  wet?     A.    No  moisture  on  them. 

Q.  Did  they  look  differently  then  from  what  they  do  now?  A. 
They  looked  slightly  fresher  than  they  do  now. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Look  like  good  iron,  in  your  opinion? 
A.    Yes  ;  I  think  it  is  good  iron. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  would  pass  it  as  good  iron,  would 
you?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  makes  the  difference  in  appearance  between  this  part  and 
this  part  in  here  ;  is  that  where  it  was  welded,  or  not?  A.  Oh,  no  ; 
that  is  a  break  through  the  solid  iron. 

Q.  What  makes  the  difference  between  the  appearance  there  and 
inhere?  A.  There  are  two  spots  there  that  are  rusted.  There  are 
spots  on  the  edge  there  that  are  clean  ;  it  is  not  rusted  over  the  whole 
surface.     I  think  it  is  fresh  rust. 

Q.  You  think  this  is  fresh  in  here?  A.  Yes,  sir.  You  see  there 
is  rust  away  into  the  grain  at  the  furthest  point. 

Q.    And  that  is  fresh  rust?     A.    I  think  so.     It  looks  to  me  as  if 


APPENDIX.  135 

at  this  point  it  had  been  done  when  forged  ;  made  pretty  hot,  perhaps 

quite  as  hot  as  it  ought  to  be. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Burned?  A.  [  don't  think  it  was  burned, 
but  came  pretty  near  it. 

Q.  If  they  gol  it  too  hot,  that  weakened  it.  <li<ln't  it?  A.  res, 
sir;  yen  can't  heat  iron  too  hot  without  weakening  it.  You  can't 
make  a  weld  that  is  as  strong  as  solid  iron. 

Q.  That  is  generally  conceded?  A.  Tee;  sot  by  forging  it.  Ton 
can't  make  it  as  strong  as  it  is  in  the  main  body  <  I*  the  solid  iron. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  long  would  it  take  tor  iron  to  get 
rusted?  A.  Well,  under  some  circumstances  it  would  rust  in  a  wry 
short  time. 

Q.  How  many  hours?  A.  Within  a  single  hour,  —  under  favor- 
able circumstances,  of  course. 

Q.    Rusted  the  way  it  is  now?     A.    As  much  as  it  is  now  ;  yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  KiNSLET.)  Is  the  hearing  lace  of  the  top  chord  that 
we  have  here  properly  faced  up,  in  your  opinion?  A.  Not  in  this 
present  condition.  That  has  been  knocked  out  of  its  original  condi- 
tion. When  it  was  made,  the  whole  thing  was  squared  off  true  by  a 
machine. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  never  built  any  bridge  before 
or  since  like  that?  A.  Not  so  far  as  putting  it  alongside  of  a  truss 
like  the  other  is  concerned. 

Q.  You  did  design  and  build  a  bridge  similar  to  this  on  the  Boston 
&  Maine  Railroad,  didn't  you?     A.    Not  like  this. 

Q.  You  did  build  one,  —  it  seems  to  me  I  recollect  it?  A.  It  was 
a  short  through  bridge. 

Q.    Where  was  that?     A.    I  can't  tell  the  location. 

Q.  Does  it  stand  now?  A.  No;  that  was  knocked  down  by  a 
train  oil  the  track. 

Q.  You  don't  know  where  it  was?  A.  I  can't  tell  the  location  :  it 
was  on  the  Boston  &  .Maine  extension. 

(i.  Are  you  correct  in  Baying  that  the  height  of  the  truss  was 
twenty-sis  feet?    A.  Twenty-six  feet,  1  think,  between  the  sections; 

theoretical  height. 

Q    Were  the  bearings  of  the  joint  blocks  planed?     A.    Planed. 
Q.   (By  the  Chairman.)     5Tou  stated,  as  your  opinion,  that  those 

two  hangers  were  not  broken,  either  of  them,  before  the  accident 
happened?    A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  When  that  bridge  down  in  Maine  fell,  was 
it  put  up  by  you  individually,  or  by  the  Moseley  Company?  A.  Bj 
the  New  England  Iron  ( lompany. 

<^.    (By  Mr.  Williams.)     Did  you  ever  Bee  these  bangers  before 


136  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

they  were  put  into  the  bridge?  A.  Undoubtedly,  though  I  don't 
recollect  having  done  so. 

Q.  Do  3rou  recollect  having  inspected  any  hangers  before  they 
were  put  in  ?     A.    No,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Where  were  those  hangers  manufactured?  A.  At  the  Trenton 
Iron  Works. 

Q.  You  sent  the  specifications  to  the  Trenton  Iron  Works,  I  sup- 
pose, and  the}'  were  manufactured  according  to  the  specifications? 
A.  They  furnished  the  iron,  and  the  work  was  done  by  their  men.  I 
had  a  man  there  in  my  employ  who  had  charge  of  the  work  or  the 
supervision  of  it. 

Q.  How  many  times  were  you  in  Trenton  inspecting  the  work  on 
this  bridge  yourself?  A.  I  could  not  tell,  but  probably  five  or  six 
times. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  name  of  the  man  who  inspected  this  work  ? 
A.    John  Mead. 

Q.    Where  is  he  now  ?     A.    He  is  in  Detroit. 

Q.  Where  was  the  iron  work  shipped  when  it  came  from  Trenton? 
A.    Shipped  direct^  to  the  site  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  each  piece  yourself  there  before  the  bridge 
was  put  together?  A.  Well,  I  could  not  say  that  I  did;  but,  un- 
doubtedly, I  saw  ever}r  piece. 

Q.  Who  erected  the  bridge  at  the  site?  A.  The  work  was  done 
by  the  railroad,  under  nry  supervision.  I  think  the  contract  specified 
that  the}T  accepted  that  part  of  the  contract  which  put  their  mechanics 
under  my  supervision. 

Q.   Regular  mechanics  of  the  railroad?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  were  not  specially  bridge  builders?  A.  I  think  the  men 
who  work  there  are  continuously  employed  upon  bridges  whenever 
there  is  anything  of  that  kind  to  be  done. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  to  put  that  bridge  together  at  the  site? 
A.    I  could  not  tell  from  recollection. 

Q.  Were  }rou  there  constantly  while  it  was  going  up  ?  A.  Probably 
not  constantly,  but  there  daily,  and  the  most  of  the  time  every  day. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Mr.  Hewins,  did  you  select  the  iron  yourself 
out  of  which  this  bridge  was  made  ?  A.  No;  it  was  furnished  by  the 
Trenton  Iron  Works. 

Q.    Did  you  name  the  character  of  the  iron?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  definitely  did  }rou  name  the  character  of  the  iron  that  you 
wanted?     A.    The  same  as  that  in  the  specifications. 

Q.  That  is.  best  wrought  iron  ?  A.  What  is  termed  in  the  market 
"  best  best,"  which  is  a  better  quality,  is  another  working,  than  what 
is  called  "  best  iron." 

Q.    Is  there  any  inspection  possible  of  forges  of  this  character  that 


APPENDIX.  i:;7 

would  prevent  the  iron  from  being  overheated  if  the  workmei 
careless?     A.    No,  Bir. 
Q.    I    mean  possible  in   practicable  management?      A.   The  onh 

possible  way  would  be  for  an  expert    t..  stan. I  over  the  workman  uli.  ii 

he  was  .loin--  tin-  work  and  practically  do  it  himself. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  the  appearance  of  those  hangers,  as  you 
see  them  now.  independently  of  the  fact  that  they  an-  broken,  that 
would  induce  you  to  criticise  the  iron  unfavorably?     A.    .v..  -ir. 

Q.  You  consider  it  good  iron,  bo  far  as  you  can  judge  bj  its  appear- 
ance?     A.    Yes,  Bir. 

Q.    How  about  the  workmanship?     Do  you  Bee  anything  in  the  work- 
manship that  would  lead  you  to  criticise  those  bangers,  if  thi 
under  inspection,  now?    A.   Then-  is  one  point  where  I  think  the  iron 
was  slightly  overheated. 

Q.  And  that  is  visible  on  inspection  after  the  work  is  don.-,  is  it? 
A.    Xo.  sir;  only  after  it  is  broken. 

n.  Is  there  anything  which,  if  it  were  not  broken,  would  induce 
you  to  criticise  those  hangers  unfavorably,  it'  you  were  oo*  inspecting 
them  for  acceptance ?     A.    Xo,  sir. 

(^.  You  are  sure  that  the  burning  of  the  iron  would  not  show  except 
upon  a  break?      A.    1  should  not  know  how  to  discover  it. 

Q.  So  far  :i»  you  ran  judge  from  Beeing  the  iron  after  it  is  broken, 
what  is  its  quality,  in  your  judgment?     A.    I  think  it  is  good. 

n.  Do  you  Bee  anything  about  it  that  would  lead  you  to  reject  it? 
A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  the  workmanship  which  you  would  criticise, 
except  the  appearance  of  the  iron  whicb  you  And  upon  its  being 
broken?    A.    No. 

Q.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that  piece  of  what  I  think  you  called 
•■  shape  iron,"  which  i^  riveted  on  to  a  piece  of  plate  iron,  and  formed, 
I  think,  a  part  of  the  upper  chord  of  your  truss?  A.  That  was  t.. 
unite  the  three  I   beams  which  composed  the  compression  members, 

and  at  the  same  time  add  BO  much  to  it>  Bectiooal  area. 

<v>.    You  mean  that   the  upper  chord  of  that  tin--  was  oom|  • 
three  I  beams,  Burrounded  by  plate  iron?     A.    Partially  surrounded. 

If  you  would  like,   I   will  make  you  a  sketch  of    tin-     i  ,i.-a. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)    Are  those  hangers  as  well  made 
other  extension  members  of  th<  bi    I  se?    \.   [think  so. 

<^.   Ought  they  to  have  been  as  well  made ?      \.    Certainly. 

Q.  Ought  they  not  to  have  been  more  carefully  made ?  \  ^ .  - 
they  should  have  been  more  can  fullj  made. 

Q.  And  you  think  they  are  t"u 1 1 \  aa  well  made  as  th«  oi 
members  of  the  bridge,  do  you ?  \  rhey  are  not  pen. 
somely  made,  as  far  a-  outside  finish  i-  concerned. 


138  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  are  as  well  made?  A.  Special  care  was 
taken  that  they  should  be  safelj-  made. 

Q.    Do  you  think  they  are  properly  made?     A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  As  well  made  as  you  would  expect  them  to  be  made?  A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Aciiorn.)  Did  anyone  compute  the  strain  which  each 
one  of  these  trusses  was  to  bear?     A.    Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  from  the  position  of  the  rails  what  portion  of  the 
weight  each  truss  would  bear?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  compute  a  bridge  like  that?  A.  Many  times.  It 
is  the  same  principle  as  an}T  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams  )  If  this  hanger  which  is  broken  here  should 
give  way,  the  effect  of  that  would  be  to  let  down  the  floor  beam  which 
that  supports  at  the  west  side  of  the  bridge,  would  it  not?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  Now,  that  would  let  down  the  whole  road-bed  at  that  point, 
would  it  not?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  And  the  train  would  go  through  naturally,  the  road-bed  giving 
way?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  impulse  would  be  toward  the  west,  would  it  not?  That  is, 
it  giving  way  at  the  outside  first,  the  impulse  would  be  outward,  would 
it  not?  A.  The  impulse  in  the  first  instance  would  be  directly  in  the 
line  of  the  track  ;  in  the  next  instance  it  would  be  to  the  left,  or  west- 
ward, as  you  describe.  From  the  skew  of  the  abutment  that  would 
be  perhaps  the  strongest  inclination,  to  the  left,  by  the  locomotive 
pulling  in  that  direction.  Of  course  the  abutment  would  deflect  every- 
thing. 

Q.  Would  the  fact  of  the  cars  being  on  a  curve  and  to  the  left  also 
have  that  effect?  A.  I  don't  know  that  that  would  have  any  effect, 
but  on  account  of  the  skew  of  the  bridge  I  should  expect  the  cars  to^ 
go  that  way. 

Q.  Now,  is  it  at  all  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  bruise  to  that 
joint  block  which  you  have  described  could  have  been  occasioned  by 
the  sinking  of  the  road-bed  and  throwing  a  car  against  the  joint 
block?  A.  Yes;  there  are  two  reasons  why  I  think  that  could  not 
have  been  the  cause  :  If  the  cars  dropped  vertically,  I  don't  know  of 
any  part  of  the  car  that  could  have  made  such  a  mark  on  the  casting 
by  striking  it.  In  the  next  place,  the  post  or  strut  that  was  directly 
underneath  it  would  have  been  crushed,  which  was  not  the  case  ;  it 
was  split,  it  was  not  crushed,  as  it  would  have  been  if  that  large  flooi 
beam  had  been  dropped. 

Q.  You  mean  the  strut  that  supported  the  floor  beam?  A.  It  did 
not  support  it,  but  it  was  directby  under  it. 

Q.   In  your  theory  of  derailment,  how  should  that  bruise  be  caused; 


i 


APPENDIX.  lag 

A.  By  the  train  going  off  the  track  on  that  Bide  far  enough  for  some 
portion  <>f  the  truck  to  strike  this  casting, 

Q.  How  high  up  is  that  casting  from  the  level  of  the  rails? 
A.    My   recollection   is   that    it    is   ptvttv    nearly   flush. 

(.,{.  The  effeel  of  the  sinking  of  the  road-bed,  if  yon  had  an  upward 
thrust  of  the  train,  would  be  to  throw  the  axle  over  against  that  joint 
block,  would  it  not.     A.    It  would  not  get  angle  enough  to  do  that. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  on  the  sleepers  that  were  taken  from  the 
road-bed  on  the  bridge  that  indicated  anything  to  your  mind? 
A.    No;  I  tried  to.  but  I  could  not  get  anything  from  them. 

Q.    When  did  you  inspect  the  bridge?     A.    Monday  afternoon. 

Q.    You  could  see  the  sleepers  on  the  Roslindale  Bide  in  the  wick? 

A.      Yes. 

Q.  There  were  no  signs  of  derailment,  were  there,  there?  a.  I 
think  not. 

<,>.     How  far   across   the    bridge   Should   you    say   you    inspected   the 

sleeper-?     A.    I  can  tell  better  by  looking  at  this  photograph.     I 

crawled  down  on  the  sleepers  here  :  that  is  the  way  I  gol  down  to  the 
wreck.     I  came  down  this  abutment  on  the  Rot  le.     There  I 

came  to  the  track,  and  followed  it  along  down.  Their  must  have 
been  eight  sleepers  that   1  -aw. 

Q.    There  were  no  signs  of  derailment  ?      A.     I  did  not  gee  any. 

t.l.    (By  Mr.  Putnam.)     I  forgot  to  ask  you  whether  you  saw  the 

"I*  these  bangers  which  are  here  now  when  you  were  out  at  the 
wreck  ?      A.     Yes,  I  saw  them. 

<v».  Did  they  have  bright  fractures  at  the  time  yOQ  saw  them? 
A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  No  indication  on  them  of  an  old  break?  A.  No,  sir;  not 
that  I  could  see. 

Q.  Did  you  form  any  opinion  from  seeing  them  with  those  pieces 
at  the  time  that  the  break  was  new  and  not  old-  \.  I  tainly ; 
my  opinion  was  made  up  from  seeing  the  tw<»  together. 

Q.    And  you  formed   the  opinion  without    hesitation  that    it  was  not 

an  old  break?     A.    Not   without    hesitation;    I  gave  them  a  careful 

examination. 

Q.  1  mean,  you  came  to  the  decided  opinion,  did  you,  that  it  was 
a  new  bieak  and  not  an  old  one?      A.     I  did  :   yes,  sir. 

•  ,>.  Was  this  bridge  properly  provided,  in  your  opinion,  with  diag- 
onal bracing  between  the  two  trusses:      \     r< 

Q.    Both  vertically  and  horizontally?     A.    Fee,  sii       l'    iraa  hori- 
zontal   in    two   planes,  top    and    bottom    chord,   and    vertical    a' 
floor  beam. 

c^.   There  was  both  vertical  and  diagonal  bracing?     A.    'i 
at  each  floor  beam. 


140  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  And  the  ends  of  the  trusses,  where  the}7  were  not  opposite  t< 
one  another,  were  braced  to  the  abutments?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  some  o 
the  horizontal  bracing  went  into  the  abutments,  anchored  there. 

Q.  In  forming  your  theory  of  the  way  in  which  this  accident  hap 
pened,  did  you  take  into  account  the  condition  of  the  three  cars  whicl 
arrived  on  the  other  side?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  }Tou  considered  the  bearing  upon  that  accident  of  the  fac 
that  the  second  and  third  cars  were  badly  telescoped,  indicating  tha 
they  received  the  full  weight  of  the  train  behind  them  after  they  ha 
substantially  stopped?  A.  The  only  impression  I  got  from  that  wa 
that  perhaps  that  was  somewhat  due  to  the  shock  received  by  th 
train  when  it  struck  that  casting. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  if  the  first  or  second  car  had  struck  thr 
casting,  knocking  the  bridge  down  as  you  say,  the  first,  second  an 
third  cars  could  have  been. dragged  on  to  the  abutment  as  far  as  the 
were?     A.    Well,  I  have  not  any  opinion  on  that ;  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Is  it  not  very  clear  that  they  could  not?  A.  Well,  Strang 
things  will  happen.     I  have  not  any  opinion. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  which  c; 
was  derailed  first?     A.    No. 

Q.  Would  you  expect  to  find  on  the  sleepers  marks  of  wheels  wh( 
th£  wreck  is  removed,  if  there  was  derailment?  A.  Not  necessaril 
but  I  should  look  for  them. 

Q    If  there  were  marks  of  wheels,  they  would  be  recognized 
such,  would  they  not?     A.    In  all  probability,  though  marks  tbat  y<j 
get  by  wheels  are  sometimes  mistaken  for  marks  of  brake-rods  th; 
were  hanging  down  and  striking.     Still,  as  a  rule,  you  can  be  pre!' 
certain  it  was  a  wheel. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Is  there  any  doubt  in  your  mind  thatf 
the  bridge  had  given  way  with  the  train  upon  it,  by  the  breaking  f 
those  straps,  without  any  previous  check  of  the  train,  the  train  woil 
have  all  gone  down,  and  whatever  went  over  would  have  got  oir 
safely,  —  I  mean  without  being  telescoped  ?  A.I  think  it  must  be  f| 
Q.  That  is,  there  would  have  been  a  drop  of  the  whole  thing  win 
those  straps  gave  way?  A.  Undoubtedly;  because  that  portion  f 
the  train  which  had  gone  over  would  have  broken  loose  from  the  re, 
and  nothing  could  have  affected  it  from  behind. 

Q.  And  what  was  on  the  bridge  would  have  gone  right  dow? 
A.  Yes  ;  they  would  have  been  stopped  by  the  abutment ;  they  col 
not  have  run  into  the  cars  in  front  of  them. 

Q.  Yes;  but  it  could  not  have  got  to  the  abutment?  A.  (| 
no,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Could  the  bridge  go  down  so  fast,  e 
train  going  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  that  those  three  cs 


APPENDIX.  i4i 

would  not  have  gone  on  to  the  embankment  on  the  op| 
A.    It  is  difficult  to  tell  how  fast  it  would  go  down;  bat  I  think  that 
whatever  struck  that  casting,  whatever  was  behind  them,  would  not 
gone  Into  what  was  in  front  of  them,  whether  the  bridge  went 
down  slowly  or  quickly. 

Q.    Supposing  that  both  those  hangers  gave  way  ler  (he  second 

car.  and  the  cars  came  on,  dropping  all  the  time,  and  struck  a 
the  abutment  here  and  the  other  cars  were  coming  down  after  them, 
all  connected  by  Miller  platforms,  would  they  not  have  given 
great  push,  and  would  not  that  have  had  a  tendency  to  telescope  thai 
car  there,  where  it  struck  against  that  car  there,  and  push  it  upon 
the  abutment?  A.  Undoubtedly  that  car  would  have  been  tele- 
Booped,  but  it  seems  to  me  impossible  that  it  could  have  gotten  up 
on  the  abutment. 

I  ».    The  track  from  there  to  there  would  have  fallen  down  that  way, 

resting  on  a  pivot  here  and  dropped  down  as  a  whole  body,  would  it 
not?  A.  Yes,  sir;  if  it  was  the  rear  truck  of  the  second  car.  for 
instance,  that  struck  here,  1  suppose  that  car  would  have  gotten  over 
on  to  the  abutmenl  :    1  don't   know  bat   that  car  might  have 

a  severe  -hock  from  the  cars  in  its  rear. 

Q.    Might    not   the    front  car,  going  at  that   rate,   have  got   on  this 
piece  of  the  bridge  which  was  about  dropping  down,  perhaps?    This 
portion  here  would  not  have  dropped,  would  it  ?    Could  it  not  have  got- 
ten np  and   gone  over?      A.     I   don't    believe   that  car  could    ha 
ten  up  there. 

\».    (By  Mr.   Kinsley.)     From  whom  did  this  burned  iron  come? 
A.    The  Trenton  ( 'ompany. 

<,>.    Is  that  a  first-class  company  ?     A.    First-class  company. 

(j.    Would  a  first-class  company  allow  burned  iron  t<>  go  out  of  its 

place?     A.    You   hardly  do   fairly  in   calling    it  burned  iron.      I  mean 

While  it  was  heated    rather    warmer    than    I    think    it    ought    to 

have    heen,  at  the    same    time,  I  don't  think  it  had  been  heated  to  an 

Unreasonable  extent,  to  do  it  any  serious  injury. 

Q.    Their    is  no  element  of  in  that  iron,  in    \oiir  opinion? 

A.    I  do  not  think  it  is  quite  as  Btrong  as  if  it  had  not  been  over- 
heated, but  I  think  it  is  very  Btrong. 
<,>.    If  that  had  Keen  properly  inspected,  either  in  its  manufacture 

or  after  it  was  completed,  would  not  that  burned  iron  have  been  found 
out?      A.     V 

'v».    There  is  no  way  to  find  it  out?      A.     No  way  to  find  it  out. 

Q.    You  have  not  to  trust  the  company  it-elf?  A.    You   hi 

to  trust  the  company  itself  A.  company  ent  has 
got  to  be  trusted  to  do  it-,  work  properly. 

','.    lint  if  properly  inspected  at  the  time  through  its 


142  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

formation,  the  inspector  will  find  out  whether  it  is  being  burned  or 
not.  A  first-class  corporation  would  have  a  competent  inspector,  it 
st'cm-  to  me.  A.  No  concern  can  appoint  a  special  man  to  watch 
every  stroke  that  is  made,  or  every  heat  that  is  put  into  the  fire. 
The  workmen  must  be  inspectors  themselves  to  that  extent.  That  is 
so  in  all  concerns,  without  any  limitation. 

Q.  A  competent  workman  would  not  allow  burned  iron  to  go  out 
of  his  shop,  would  he?  A.  The  Trenton  Iron  Company  mean  to  em- 
ploy good  workmen,  and  they  think  they  do. 

Adjourned  to  Friday  at  ten  o'clock. 


FOURTH     DAY. 

Friday,  March  18,  1887. 

The  Board  met  at  ten  o'clock. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  desire  to  put  in  the  paper  from  which  Mr.  Folsom 
testified  ^yesterday  and  call  attention  to  the  date,  which  was  not  read, 
and  which  is  important.  He  supposed  that  he  was  testifying  with 
reference  to  the  test  which  was  made  at  the  time  the  bridge  was  put 
up  ;  he  had  forgotten  that  there  was  another  test  made,  but  it  appears 
from  the  very  paper  itself  that  it  was  a  later  test. 

(Taper  put  in  headed  "Test  of  Bussey  Bridge,  Jan.  7,  1882.") 

Henry  F.  Shaw —  sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence  ?  A.  Core}- Street,  West 
Roxbury. 

Q.    What  is  your  occupation ?     A.    Mechanical  engineer. 

Q.    What  has  been  your  education  as  such?     A.    A  practical  one. 

().  Have  you  any  special  knowledge  in  regard  to  this  bridge 
structure?  A.  Not  particularly  as  regards  the  bridge  structure.  I 
have  been  over  it  ever  since  the  structure  was  built,  and  before,  when 
the  old  wooden  structure  was  there.  Twenty-six  years  I  have  been 
over  that  bridge. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  reason  to  doubt  the  strength  of  the  late 
structure?     A.    I  have  had  some  doubts  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

(,).  What,  was  the  occasion  of  your  doubt?  A.  The  lateral  vibra- 
tions of  the  structure  from  the  trains  passing  over  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  notice  that,  —  when  you  were  on  the  train? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  143 

Q.  How  great  a  vibration  was  it?  A.  I  cannot  say  as  far  as 
that  is  concerned.  I  think  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the 
lateral  vibration  produced  by  a  train  running  over  a  bridge  from  the 
fact  that  the  springs  underneath  our  cars  take  off  considerable  of  that 
lateral  motion  which  occurs  on  the  truck  beneath  ami  it  is  not  felt  in 
the  car. 

Q.  I  understand  that  you  have  felt  this  lateral  vibration  that  you 
speak  of  yourself,  have  you?  A.  I  have  felt  somewhat  of  a  vibration 
or  swaying. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  that  was  the  vibration  of  the  bridge  and  not  the 
vibration  of  the  car?  A.  I  think  it  was  due  to  the  vibration  of  the 
bridge  produced  by  the  locomotive. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  other  people  have  noticed  that 
vibration?     A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  reported  it  to  the  officers  of  the  road?  A.  I 
have  not. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  noticed  it?  A.  Every  time  I  have  been 
over  it,  if  I  took  any  particular  notice  of  it  at  all. 

Q.  Have  you  any  further  information  to  give  in  regard  to  the 
bridge?  A.  I  should  like  to  make  a  statement  in  regard  to  the 
construction  of  that  bridge,  if  it  is  in  order. 

Q.  We  know  the  general  construction  of  it.  If  there  were  any 
special  defects  in  that  construction  you  can  state  them.  A.  Yes, 
sir,  that  is  what  I  wish  to  speak  of.  The  principal  defect  I  saw  in 
that  bridge  was  the  want  of  proper  bracing  laterally  from  the  bridge 
into  the  abutments.  There  was  nothing  that  I  could  discover  from 
examination  that  was  anchored  into  the  abutments  and  into  the  bridge 
to  stop  this  lateral  vibration  produced  upon  every  bridge  that  a 
locomotive  runs  over. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  have  examined  that  bridge,  I  under- 
stand?    A.    I  have  been  looking  it  over  since  the  disaster,  not  before. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  did  not  notice  this  lack  of  cross 
bracing  before  the  disaster?  A.  I  did  not,  but  I  supposed  it  was 
there.  Any  man  acquainted  with  the  action  of  a  train  upon  a  bridge 
would  certainly  have  put  it  there  when  the  bridge  was  built.  It 
showed  a  want  of  knowledge  of  what  was  going  on  overhead  in  not 
having  that  bracing  there. 

Q.  You  have  not  examined  the  structure  of  the  bridge  except  as 
you  saw  it  on  the  ground  since  the  accident?     A.    That  is  all. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  You  are  a  locomotive  builder,  are  you 
not?     A.    I  have  built  one  locomotive,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  made  an}'  study  of  the  elfect  of  curves  upon  the  mo- 
tion of  locomotives  on  the  track  ?     A.    I  have. 


144  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  curve  of  the  track  on  the  Roslindale 
side  of  tlu-  1  nidge?     A.    I  have. 

Q.  How  near  to  the  southerly  abutment  of  the  bridge  is  the  end  of 
that  curve?  A.  I  should  say  the  curve  conies  up  within  ten  feet  of 
the  abutment. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  the  motion  of  a  locomotive  passing  from  the 
Roslindale  side  of  the  bridge  to  the  Boston  side  would  be  after  pass- 
ing over  that  curve?  A.  That  locomotive  as  it  came  on  to  the  curve 
swung  over  to  the  easterly  side  and  threw  her  centre  of  gravity  over 
on  to  the  easterly  track.  As  she  struck  the  bridge,  to  right  herself 
up  into  her  proper  position,  she  would  strike,  about  two-thirds  of  the 
way  across  that  bridge,  a  blow  which  I  believe  to  have  been  the  death- 
blow of  that  bridge.  It  was  given  by  the  locomotive  there,  and  as 
she  rolled  up  on  to  the  westerly  side  she  took  the  bridge  off  from  the 
abutment  on  the  forward  end  and  carried  it  round,  swinging  upon  the 
real'  abutment  of  that  bridge,  and  carried  it  down.  The  evidence,  as 
far  as  I  examined  it,  is  proof  of  that.  The  front  of  the  abutment 
was  scratched  and  marred  a  good  deal  from  the  ruins  of  the  bridge, 
etc.,  while  the  rear  of  the  abutment  was  perfectly  smooth,  nothing  but 
tie  rods  sticking  up  at  an  angle,  showing  that  as  the  bridge  fell  it 
swung  at  the  same  time  clear  of  the  western  abutment. 

Q.  In  building  a  curve  the  outward  track  on  the  curve  is  made 
higher  than  the  inner,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir,  slightly  higher,  to 
round  the  curve,  and  that  would  throw  the  centre  of  gravity  beyond 
the  centre  of  the  track. 

Q.  Throw  the  centre  of  gravity  inside  the  curve?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
The  engine  recovers  her  position  by  a  reaction  upon  the  straight  part 
of  the  track,  and  that  reaction  is  enormous  with  a  heavy  engine  such 
as  this  was  ;  and  that  was  sufficient  in  this  case,  from  the  angle  of 
the  abutments  —  they  had  to  move  only  about  six  or  eight  inches  to 
be  carried  off  of  the  abutment  at  the  left,  and  that  was  sufficient  to 
carry  it  entirely  off.     There  is  no  doubt  about  it  in  my  mind. 

Albert  A.  Folsom  —  sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence?  A.  97  Appleton  Street, 
Boston. 

Q.  Your  occupation?  A.  Superintendent  of  the  Boston  &  Provi- 
dence Railroad. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  railroad,  and  what 
have  been  your  positions  there?  A.  I  entered  the  service  of  the 
corporation  in  1854. 

Q.  Describe  the  various  positions  which  you  have  held.  A.  From 
1854  to  18G0  I  was  the  general  ticket  agent;  from  1860  to  1864  I 
was  the  agent  of  the  corporation  in  Providence ;  from  1864  to  1867  I 


APPENDIX.  145 

was  assistant  superintendent  of  the  road  in  Boston,  and  since  1867 
I  have  been  the  superintendent. 

Q.  What  is  the  method  adopted  by  you  with  reference  to  the  safety 
of  your  cars  and  locomotives?  A.  Our  cars  and  locomotives  are 
under  the  charge  of  the  master  mechanic,  and  if  there  is  any  car 
which  is  injured  or  needs  repairs  it  is  sent  to  the  shop  and  there 
attended  to.  The  cars  are,  of  course,  scattered  around  over  the 
system,  the  same  as  the  locomotives,  and  they  are  under  the  super- 
vision of  a  great  many  people  ;  but  if  they  need  repairs  they  have  to 
go  to  the  repair  shop. 

Q.    AY  here  is  that?     A.    Roxbury. 

Q.  Your  master  mechanic  is  Mr.  Richards?  A.  Mr.  George 
Richards. 

Q.  AYhat  are  his  instructions  from  you  in  regard  to  the  care  of 
cars?  A.  Well,  the  only  instructions  are  to  have  everything  in  first- 
class  order. 

Q.    Are  there  any  printed  regulations  in  regard  to  it?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Any  regulations  in  regard  to  the  methods  of  inspection  or  the 
frequency  of  inspection?  A.  The  cars  in  Boston,  where  of  course 
the  most  cars  are  used,  are  under  the  charge  of  Mr.  Edward  Langr 
who  is  a  very  able  and  competent  man.  We  believe  he  thoroughly 
knows  his  business,  and  everything  in  regard  to  him  has  been  satis- 
factory. We  have  had  no  occasion  to  find  any  fault  with  him  in 
regard  to  the  discharge  of  his  duty. 

Q.  Is  it  left  to  him  to  decide  what  inspection  shall  be  made  and 
how  often  it  shall  be  made?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  has  the  sole  control  of 
it  in  Boston. 

Q.  Is  he  superior  to  the  master  mechanic,  as  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned, or  is  the  master  mechanic  over  him?  A.  The  master  me- 
chanic has  charge  of  the  rolling  stock. 

Q.  It  is  left  to  the  master  mechanic,  then,  to  decide  how  often  the 
cars  shall  be  inspected,  how  often  they  shall  be  put  into  the  shop,  and 
what  repairs  shall  be  made  to  them?  A.  Well,  a  great  part  of  the 
rolling  stock,  of  course,  comes  under  Mr.  Lang's  supervision,  coming 
into  Boston,  —  Mr.  Lang  and  his  assistants.  If  they  find  anything 
wrong  or  anything  out  of  order  the  cars  are  sent  into  the  shop.  The 
cars  are  marked  and  some  notice  is  sent  of  what  is  required  to  be 
done.  There  they  undergo  a  careful  examination,  are  put  in  order 
and  returned  to  Boston. 

Q.  To  whom  does  Mr.  Lang  report?  A.  He  reports  to  the  mas- 
ter mechanic  anything  he  wants  done  ;  anything  that  is  necessary. 

Q.  Is  he  under  Mr.  Richards'  immediate  supervision  or  is  he  under 
your  immediate  supervision?  A.  He  is  under  Mr.  Richards'  super- 
vision and  my  own  too.     He  frequently  speaks  to  me  about  certain 


146  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

things,  as,  for  instance,  if  it  is  advisable  to  keep  a  car  for  rebuilding  ; 
and  when  he  speaks  to  me  about  that,  Mr.  Richards  and  I  consult 
whether  it  is  advisable  to  spend  a  certain  amount  of  money  in  repair- 
ing the  car  or  to  condemn  it. 

().  To  which  one  of  those  two  men  do  you  look  as  primarily  re- 
sponsible in  regard  to  the  proper  condition  of  the  cars,  —  to  Mr.  Rich- 
ards or  to  Mr.  Lang?     A.    Mr.  Richards. 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Richards  is  Mr.  Lang's  superior,  and  Mr.  Lang 
would  report  to  him,  would  he  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Richards  is  not  subject  to  an)'  special  regulations  in  regard 
to  the  frequency  of  the  examination  of  cars,  the  nature  of  the  examina- 
tion, or  the  frequency  with  which  the}'  shall  be  put  into  the  shop  and 
thoroughly  repaired,  but  is  left  to  exercise  his  discretion,  is  he? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  about  the  locomotives?  A.  The  same  thing.  The  loco- 
motives are  under  his  full  control.  He  can  do  as  he  pleases  with 
them.  His  opinion  is  entirely  respected  ;  there  is  no  going  back 
of  him.  He  is  the  master  mechanic,  and  we  believe  that  he  is  a 
good  one. 

Q.  Are  the  records  of  the  different  cars  returned  to  you  ?  That  is, 
what  is  the  nature  of  the  record  which  is  kept  of  each  car?  A.  A 
record  of  the  repairs  on  the  cars  is  kept  at  the  shop  by  Mr.  Richards. 

Q.  Is  there  a  separate  record  kept  of  the  history  of  each  car?  A. 
Yes.  We  know  when  the  cars  come  on  the  road,  and  we  know  when 
they  are  rebuilt,  as  they  are,  after  several  years'  service.  Sometimes 
the}'  get  injured,  and  require  extensive  repairs  ;  and  sometimes  we 
send  cars  to  outside  shops  to  be  rebuilt,  —  to  Worcester,  for  instance. 
They  require  constant  attention,  there  are  so  many  of  them  now. 

Q.  Is  there  any  one  place  where  you  could  go  and  get  the  history 
<if  each  car  in  this  train,  as  to  when  it  was  made,  how  often  it  has 
been  repaired,  and  what  the  nature  of  the  repairs  has  been?  A. 
'i  38,  sir;  Mr.  Richards  has  it  with  him  at  the  present  time,  for  all 
those  cars. 

Q.  Is  that  a  compilation  made  to-day,  or  is  it  something  that  has 
been  compiled  from  time  to  time,  so  that  at  any  time  you  could  have 
looked  at  it  and  ascertained  the  facts?  A.  We  should  have  bad  to 
search  the  records  for  it. 

Q.  You  do  not  have  a  history  of  each  car  by  itself  and  make  ad- 
ditions to  it  as  time  advances?  A.  Well,  we  do  not  open,  you 
might  say,  a  ledger  accountwith  each  car,  but  you  might  call  it  a  journal. 

Q.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  engines?  A.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  engines.     They  are  rebuilt  the  same  as  the  cars. 

Q.  That  record  Mr.  Richards  has  here  this  morning?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  of  the  cars,  —  the  locomotive  record  I  left  with  you  yesterday. 


APPENDIX.  147 

Q.  Are  there  any  printed  instructions,  to  your  knowledge,  issued 
by  Mr.  Richards  to  the  car  inspectors  as  to  what  their  duties  are? 
A.    I  don't  think  there  are  any.     I  have  never  seen  an}\ 

Q.  Are  there  any  printed  instructions  issued  to  the  engineers  as  to 
their  duties?     A.    I  know  of  none. 

Q.  That  is,  such  instructions  are  given  orally,  are  they  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  There  is  a  foreman  of  what  we  call  the  round  house  to  whom 
the  engineers  report  about  their  locomotives. 

Q.  The  engineers  report  originally  to  him  if  there  is  anything  the 
matter  with  their  locomotives?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  authority  to  take  action  at  once  or  does  he  report  to 
Mr.  Richards?  A.  He  probably  reports  to  Mr.  Richards  if  Mr. 
Richards  is  present ;  if  he  is  not,  he  uses  his  own  judgment  what  to 
do  in  providing  another  locomotive. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  bridge  called  the  Bussey  Farm  Bridge. 
Do  you  remember  the  circumstances  attending  the  contract  for  its 
rebuilding  in  1876,  and  will  you  describe  what  action  you  took  in 
regard  to  it?  A.  Well,  at  some  period — I  cannot  locate  now  when — 
it  became  necessaiy  to  think  about  putting  a  new  truss  in  that  bridge, 
and  the  superintendent  of  bridges  consulted  with  me  about  it ;  told 
me  the  condition  of  •affairs  and  what  was  necessary  to  be  done,  and 
we  immediately  took  steps  towards  getting  a  new  truss  and  having  it 
erected  and  moving  the  other  one  over. 

Q.  Just  what  steps  did  you  take?  'A.  Well,  we  consulted  with 
two  concerns.  Mr.  Folsom,  the  bridge  man,  submitted  in  writing 
what  he  wanted  about  the  bridge,  and  the  bridge  was  contracted  for 
and  finished. 

Q.  Did  you  investigate  at  all  the  specifications  of  that  bridge  and 
the  character  of  the  construction?  A.  We  had  consultations  to- 
gether, and  we  selected  what  we  thought  was  a  good  and  the  best 
thing,  the  best  truss. 

Q.    You  consulted  with  Mr.  Folsom?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Folsom  had  never  been 
connected  with  the  building  of  an  iron  bridge?  A.  No,  sir.  I  con- 
sidered him  fully  competent  and  an  able  man,  who  knew  what  he 
wanted  and  what  was  necessary  for  the  business  and  traffic  of  the 
road. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  advice  of  any  other  expert  in  regard  to  the 
building  of  that  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  did  you  investigate  the  standing  of  the  Metropolitan 
Bridge  Company?  A.  Well,  all  I  knew  about  the  Metropolitan 
Bridge  Company  was  Mr.  Hewins,  whom  I  knew  as  once  superin- 
tendent,—  well,  I  don't  know  as  he  was  the  superintendent,  I  think 


148  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

he  was  the  engineer  of  an  establishment  at  Readville,  on  the  Boston 
&  Providence  road,  that  made  bridges. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Whose  establishment  was  that,  Mr.  Fol- 
som?  A.  I  think  it  was  the  Moseley  Bridge  Company  or  New  Eng- 
land Bridge  Company  ;  I  won't  be  sure  about  the  name.  It  was  a 
large  establishment  out  there.  There  are  a  great  many  Moseley 
bridges  round,  and  at  one  time  they  had  a  contract  for  building  the 
elevated  railroad  in  New  York. 

Q.  Which  elevated  railroad?  The  3d  Avenue  or  the  6th  Avenue? 
A.  I  don't  know.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  litigation  about  it. 
Th<\   never  built  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  knew  that  he  had  been  superintendent 
of  that  company,  did  you  say  ?  A.  Either  superintendent  or  engineer. 
I  think  it  was  engineer.  He  was  the  engineer  of  the  works,  and  I 
knew  Mr.  Moseley  and  I  knew  Mr.  Richardson,  the  agent  of  those 
works  at  the  time  ;  and  every  one  that  I  ever  had  any  conversation 
with  spoke  of  Mr.  Hewins  in  the  highest  terms  as  an  able  man  in  his 
profession  and  a  very  conscientious  man.  In  fact,  I  had  a  high  opinion 
of  him. 

().  Whom  did  you  consult  at  that  time?  A.  Well,  I  recollect 
particularly  Mr.  Richardson,  who  lived  at  Hyd^  Park  and  who  died 
recently.     He  was  active  in  that  establishment  out  there. 

Q.  You  asked  him  about  Mr.  Hewins?  A.  I  asked  him  about  Mr. 
Hewins. 

Q.  What  questions  did  you  ask  him  in  regard  to  Mr.  Hewins?  A. 
What  kind  of  a  man  he  was  and  about  his  ability  ;  whether  he  was  an 
honorable,  upright  man,  who  would  do  the  right  thing. 

Q.   What  was  his  report?     A.    His  report  was  excellent. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  further  investigations  in  regard  to  him?  Ask 
anybody  else?  A.  Well,  Mr.  Moseley,  the  old  gentleman  ;  and  at  one 
time  Mr.  E.  R.  Wiggin  was  an  active  member  of  that  establishment 
out  there,  and  I  have  an  impression  that  I  consulted  him  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Hewins,  but  I  should  not  want  to  swear  to  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  consult  any  other  engineer  as  to  the  form  of  the 
structui-e?     A.    No,  sir. 

<v>.  Did  you  make  any  investigations  in  regard  to  the  Metropolitan 
Bridge  Company  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  where  their  works  were?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  only 
knew  Mr.  Hewins. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  where  the  bridge  was  going  to  be  built?  A. 
Yes,  sir  ;  1  think  I  was  told  that  the  bridge  was  going  to  be  built  at 
Trenton,  N.  J.,  by  the  —  I  won't  be  sure,  but  1  think  it  was  the 
Trenton  Bridge  Company. 

Q.    Did  not  that  strike  3'ou  as  a  curious  fact,  if  the  contract  was 


APPENDIX.  149 

made  by  the  Metropolitan  Bridge  Company?  A.  No;  it  did  not, 
because  there  used  to  be  —  I  don't  know  whether  there  are  any  now 
or  not  —  men  carrying  on  the  bridge  business  and  calling  themselves 
a  company,  who  had  their  bridges  built  round  in  different  places. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  that  you  thought  it  was  possible  that  there  was 
no  such  company  at  that  time?  A.  I  never  gave  the  Metropolitan 
Bridge  Company  a  thought.  I  never  thought  anything  about  il ,  only 
Mr.  Hewins. 

Q.  There  was  no  such  company,  was  there?  A.  I  don't  know  that 
there  was  any  such  company  ;  I  never  thought  anything  about  it. 

C*.  What  was  your  reason  for  selecting  Mr.  Hewins  rather  than 
some  other  bridge  constructor?  A.  Well,  the  good  report  of  him  and 
his  good  bearing  and  appearance.  Everything  about  him  would  tend 
to  give  the  impression  that  he  was  an  able  and  upright  man. 

Q.  What  action  did  you  take  after  the  bridge  was  built  in  regard 
to  having  it  tested?  A.  Then  it  was  put  right  into  use;  it  was 
watched.     I  went  out  to  see  it  and  I  rode  over  it  very  often. 

Q.  I  mean  before  passenger  trains  were  put  upon  it,  how  was  the 
bridge  tested  ?  A.I  have  not  got  a  copy  of  the  test ;  I  suppose  I  have 
it  in  my  files,  but  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  get  it,  I  have  had  so 
many  things  to  attend  to.  I  know  it  was  tested,  and  the  test  was  a 
severe  one,  —  the  same  as  we  test  every  structure  that  we  have.  We 
put  it  through  the  hardest  test  possible. 

Q.  You  think  you  have  that  paper?  I  should  like  to  see  what  that 
original  test  was.     A.    I  think  I  have  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  in  whose  presence  the  test  was  made?  A. 
The  test  was  probably  made  on  a  Sunda}-. 

Q.  By  whom?  A.  By  Mr.  C4eorge  F.  Folsom.  The  test  was 
made  with  engines. 

(,).  What  has  been  the  history  of  the  bridge  since  that  time?  A. 
I  have  seen  the  bridge  frequently,  ridden  over  it  a  great  many  times, 
and  I  have  been  underneath  it.  My  practice  when  I  rode  over  it 
was  always  to  ride  in  the  rear  car,  and  I  have  always  thought  that  it 
was  an  excellent  structure,  solid  and  substantial.  I  never  noticed 
any  swing  about  it  nor  anything  unpleasant  about  it.  I  never  had 
the  remotest  suspicion  but  what  it  was  as  good  a  bridge  as  then'  was 
in  the  world  for  a  railroad  bridge.     I  had  the  utmost  confidence  in  it. 

Q,  Have  you  ever  had  any  complaints  made  to  you  in  regard  to  it? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  No  complaints  at  all?  A.  No,  sir.  You  mean  in  regard  to 
the  safety  of  it? 

Q.  Yes  ;  in  regard  to  the  safety  of  it  or  any  defects  in  it?  A.  I 
think  once  there  was  a  communication  sent  to  me  that  there  were  one 
or  two  nuts  off,  but  how  recently  I  have  no  means  of  telling;  and  I 


150  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

notified  the  bridge  superintendent,  and  he  afterwards  told  me  that 
there  were  a  couple  of  nuts  gone,  but  they  did  not  affect  the  safety  of 
the  structure,  —  they  were  something  that  was  more  for  ornament  than 
for  use. 

Q.  Was  that  a  written  communication  '  A.  I  think  not ;  I  think 
that  was  in  our  consultation  in  regard  to  matters  ;  a  verbal  report.  Of 
course  we  have  frequent  consultations  with  regard  to  structures  on 
the  line  of  the  road.  We  have  not  so  many  now  as  we  used  to  have, 
because  we  are  gradually  getting  rid  of  bridges.  We  have  got  rid  of 
a  great  many  in  the  last  ten  years. 

Q.  How  often  has  that  bridge  been  tested  since  its  original  con- 
struction? A.  Aside  from  its  usual  use  it  was  tested  in  1882  by  the 
use  of  two  engines.  The  tenders  were  taken  off  and  they  were  backed 
up  together  so  that  they  had  the  four  drivers  together. 

Q.  That  was  just  after  you  received  a  communication  from  the  Kail- 
road  Commissioners,  was  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  it  that  test  to  which  Mr.  Folsom  referred  yesterday  in 
his  examination?  A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  the  test  which  he  had  here 
yesterday. 

Q.  That  test  to  which  he  referred  yesterday  was  not  the  original 
test?     A.    No;  he  made  a  mistake. 

Q.  Any  test  since  1882?  A.  No  test  of  that  character  excepting 
watching  it  with  trains  upon  it ;  the  movement  of  trains  upon  it. 

Q.  Who  has  done  that?  A.  Mr.  Folsom.  He  has  been  under 
the  bridge,  and  I  have  been  there  myself  and  on  the  ground  uear  by. 
I  always  make  it  a  point  to  see  these  bridges  as  often  as  I  can,  where- 
ever  they  are,  and  see  how  they  act  in  actual  use. 

Q.    Have  you  got  with  }ou  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  was  sent  to 
you  by  the  Railroad  Commissioners  in  December,  1881  ?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Do  you  remember  that  you  received  a  letter  at  that  time?     A. 
Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  a  letter-press  copy  of  it,  dated  Dec.  8, 
1881,  and  addressed  to  A.  A.  Folsom,  Esq.,  Superintendent  Boston 
and  Providence  Railroad. 

Dear  Sir  :  —  Agreeably  to  custom,  notes  made  by  the  commissioners 
(luring  their  annual  examination  of  your  road,  Sept.  28,  1881,  are  hereiu 
communicated  to  von. 

Track.     In  excellent  order. 

Stations.  The  Mansfield  station  was  noted  as  being  kept  untidily.  At- 
tleborough  Station  :  Not  cieanly,  especially  on  the  gentlemen's  side. 

Bridges.  Your  attention  is  called  to  the  accompanying  circular.  The 
track  construction  of  the  following-named  bridges  appears  to  the  commis- 
sioners more  or  less  defective  :  Hyde  Park,  over  Mother  Brook.  Readville 
Bridge,  over  Neponsct  River.     West  Roxbury  Bridge,  over  highway  near 


APPENDIX.  151 

Bussey  Farm  ;  the  superstructure  of  this  bridge  is  an  oddity  among  bridges  ; 
if  it  has  never  been  tested  under  a  given  load,  the  commissioners  suggest 
whether  it  would  not  be  wise  and  prudent  to  test  it  now  and  perhaps  at  stated 

intervals  hereafter,  —  intervals  shorter  or  longer,  a  year  or  more,  according 
to  the  behavior  of  the  bridge  under  the  load  ;  the  test  to  consist  in  putting 
on  a  load  somewhat  heavier  than  the  bridge  is  ever  called  upon  to  hear  in 
the  course  of  your  business,  note  the  load  put  on,  the  deflection  taken  by 
the  bridge  under  that  load,  and  the  amount  of  the  recovery  after  the  load  is 
removed ;  note  also  its  lateral  stiffness  and  strength  ;  a  series  of  such 
records  would  show  conclusively  whether  or  not  the  bridge  tested  was 
maintaining  its  strength  and  safety.  Stoughton  Branch  Bridge,  over  high- 
way this  side  of  Springdale  station;  the  commissioners  regard  this  bridge 
with  suspicion;  they  doubt  its  safety.  Attleborough  Branch,  first  two 
bridges,  defective  track.  Falls  Village,  bridge  over  highway  beyond  Falls 
Village;  a  poor  structure. 

A.    I  received  that  letter  ou  the  21st  of  December. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  date  of  the  test  which  you  made?  A.  It 
was  in  January  some  time. 

Mr.  Putnam.     The  7th  of  January. 

Q.  Have  any  tests  been  made  of  the  bridge  since  that  time?  A. 
No  tests  of  that  character. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  examined  that  bridge  from  the  street  when 
a  train  was  going  over  it  since  that  time?  A.  I  have  no  means  of 
telling  how  man}'  times.     I  have  no  record  of  it. 

Q.  The  circular  referred  to  there  was  a  circular  dated  Dec.  1,  1881, 
containing  two  pages  of  sketches  of  the  flooring  of  bridges  and  guard 
rails  and  guard  timbers?  A.  I  have  the  circular,  but  I  have  no 
sketches. 

Q.  Did  you  read  this  printed  circular  which  was  sent  out  with  the 
letter?     A     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  of  the  suggestions  made  there?  A.  It  is 
so  long  since  1  read  it  that  it  is  not  fresh  in  my  mind  now.  I  think 
it  related,  if  I  remember  right,  to  the  use  of  guard  rails  on  bridges. 

Q.  Guard  rails  or  timbers?  A.  They  are  all  the  same.  Whether 
they  are  timbers  or  rails,  they  answer  the  same  purpose. 

Q.  Have  the  ties  of  that  bridge  been  put  closer  together  lately? 
A.  I  don't  know  of  any  change  from  the  time  of  construction  to  the 
date  of  its  destruction  ;  still.  I  don't  say  there  might  not  have  been. 

Q.  How  far  have  the  ties  been  replaced?  A.  I  don't  know  that 
any  have  been  replaced      I  don't  think  any  have  been  replaced. 

Q.     They  are  the  same  ties  that  were  put  in  there  eleven  yeai 
A.    I  don't  know.      I  think  they  are  the  same. 

Q.  What  i>  the  width  of  the  openings  between  the  ties  on  that 
bridge?  A.  Well,  I  never  measured  them,  but  I  should  think  they 
were  about  six  inches. 


152  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  How  far  apart  are  you  putting  ties  on  your  bridges  now?  A. 
We  intend  to  lay  them  close  together. 

Q.  With  how  much  of  an  opening?  A.  As  close  as  they  will  lie, 
practically. 

Q.  Half  an  inch,  or  more?  A.  We  lay  them  close  together.  That 
is  what  we  are  doing  on  new  work,  or  intend  to  do. 

Q.  Was  any  action  taken  subsequently  to  the  receipt  of  that  cir- 
cular in  reference  to  guard  rails  or  guard  timbers  upon  that  bridge  ? 
A.  There  were  never  any  guard  rails  on  the  bridge  ;  we  have  had 
guard  timbers.  —  a  plank. 

().  Of  what  size?  A.  I  should  think  it  was  a  foot  wide.  That  is 
what  we  use  on  all  of  our  bridges. 

(.).  How  thick?  A.  Perhaps  three  to  three  and  a  naif  incites, 
hard  pine.  We  have  used  them  on  our  bridges  with  great  success  on 
several  derailments,  and  we  thoroughly  believe  in  them. 

Q.  That  is  placed  how  close  to  the  rail?  A.  Well,  pretty  near 
close  up  to  the  rail.  You  have  a  drawing  here  that  will  show  it 
exactly,  that  I  sent  to  you  within  a  month,  at  your  request.  It  may 
be  on  that  bridge  for  aught  I  know  :  but  it  shows  the  system  that  we 
use.  and  we  thoroughly  believe  in  it.  We  have  had  several  important 
tests  of  it  on  several  occasions  of  derailment. 

Q.  Have  you  any  other  skew  bridge  of  this  sort  on  your  railroad? 
A.  No,  not  anything.  Well,  the  bridge  at  Dedham  Village  I  think 
might  possibly  be  called  a  skew  bridge.  That  bridge  we  are  now 
replacing.  It  is  getting  a  centre  support.  It  seems  to  me  there  are 
about  seventy  feet.  There  are  two  openings.  I  don't  recollect  pre- 
cisely, but  I  think  that  is  a  sort  of  skew  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  That  is  a  wooden  bridge?  A.  That  is  a 
wooden  bridge,  Howe  truss.  The  through  bridge  at  Readville  where 
we  are  crossed  by  the  New  York  &  New  England  road  is  a  skew 
bridge,  I  should  think  about  as  bad  as  this  one. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  What  are  those  lattice  bridges  or  through 
bridges?     A.    I  think  they  are  plate  girders  at  Readville. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  have  never  made  any  special  test  of 
this  bridge  since  January,  1882,  immediately  after  the  receipt  of  the 
communication  from  the  Railroad  Commissioners?  A.  No,  sir,  no 
special  test. 

Q.  How  often  since  that  time  have  you  seen  a  train  going  over  it 
yourself?  A.  I  think  I  have  been  under  the  bridge  on  an  average  as 
much  as  twice  a  year. 

Q.    What  have  you  noticed  then?     A.    It  was  very  solid  indeed. 

Q.  Any  lateral  swing?  A.  I  never  saw  any.  Of  course  there  is 
no  great  speed  there.  The  station  is  three  thousand  feet  off  coming 
down,  and   then  there  is  an  up  grade.     When  they  start  from  Forest 


APPENDIX.  153 

Hills  there  is  an  up  grade  ;  they  cannot  get  under  any  great  headway, 
and  it  is  not  possible  to  have  any  high  rate  of  speed  any  way.  The 
last  stopping  place  is  three  thousand  feet  off,  so  that  it  is  impossible 
to  get  any  great  speed.  Still,  there  is  no  limit  by  rule  to  the  speed 
on  that  bridge.  There  are  some  bridgea  that  are  limited  by  rule  ; 
there  is  no  limit  to  that. 

Q.    Was  there  a  limit  to  the  old  bridge?     A.    Yes.  sir. 
Q.    And  no  limit  has  been  issued  in  regard  to  this  bridge?     A.    On 
the  new  structure  that  limit  was  stricken  out. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  regulations?  Printed  regulations?  A. 
Well,  the  regulations  for  the  men  —  the  engineers,  conductors  and 
brakemen  —  are  in  a  book.  The  engineers  have  directions  to  run  at  a 
certain  speed  over  certain  bridges.  A  new  edition  of  the  regulations 
was  gotten  out  in  1881  or  1882,  and  in  the  new  regulations,  there 
had  been  so  many  bridges  changed,  — for  instance,  we  had  a  bridge 
at  Dodgeville,  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long,  which  we  wiped 
out  entirely  by  having  two  arches.  Over  the  Dodgeville  bridge  and 
some  other  bridges  the  orders  were  not  to  go  over  ten  or  twelve 
miles  an  hour.  The  Bussey  bridge  was  mentioned  in  that ;  but  when 
the  new  regulations  were  made  that  was  stricken  out.  Unlimited 
speed  over  that  structure. 

Q.  Have  you  got  a  copy  of  those  regulations  with  you?  A.  Yes, 
sir.     This  was  printed  in  1881. 

Q.  What  time  did  yon  get  out  there  the  morning  of  the  accident? 
A.  I  think  I  was  there  about  eight  o'clock.  Here  is  the  regulation 
in  regard  to  speed  over  bridges:  u  Cove  and  India  Point  bridges 
are  to  be  run  over  at  a  speed  not  exceeding  ten  miles  an  hour." 
Now,  in  the  new  edition,  "Cove"  would  be  stricken  out  and  there 
would  be  only  one  bridge  where  there  would  be  any  limitation.  Cove 
bridge.  I  think,  was  four  hundred  feet  long,  and  that  has  been  short- 
ened by  brick  arches  so  that  it  is  not  much  more  than  ninety  feet 
long  now. 

<).  Will  you  describe  as  fully  as  you  can  what  you  found  there? 
A.  I  went  out  on  a  special  train  with  all  the  surgeons  and  physicians 
we  could  get,  and  my  first  thought  was  of  the  killed  and  wounded.  I 
think  there  were  very  few  left  at  that  time.  There  had  been  great 
energy  and  kindness  shown  by  everyone  in  the  neighborhood.  A 
great  many  people  came  there,  and  they  were  pretty  much  all  cared  for. 
I  looked  over  the  place,  and  I  thought  that  the  first  thing  t<>  do,  in 
order  that  there  might  be  no  mistake,  was  to  send  for  a  photographer. 
In  a  few  moments  I  saw  Mr.  George  Folsom,  and  before  I  could 
speak  to  him  about  it  he  suggested  it  to  me,  and  immediately  sent  for 
one,  and  in  a  few  minutes  I  saw  Mr.  Black  and  one  or  two  others. 
and  I  told  them  to  take  all    the    pictures  they  could  in  the  various 


154  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

positions,  that  they  would  be  wanted.  And  I  saw  another  man,  I  for- 
gel  his  Dame,  who  has  sent  me  the  pictures;  I  think  they  are  up 
here.  Then,  of  course,  after  doing-  all  I  could  there,  I  had  to  give  my 
attention  to  the  operation  of  the  road.  There  were  a  great  many 
things  to  lie  done  in  changing  the  running  of  trains. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examination  of  the  wreck  before  you  came 
into  town?  A.  I  went  down  there  and  looked  it  over,  but  the  bridge 
being  underneath  the  cars  I  could  not  tell  anything  about  it. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  come  into  town?  A.  I  think  I  came  into 
town  about  twelve  o'clock. 

Q.  Do  }'OU  remember  anything  about  the  position  of  the  cars  that 
passed  over  the  bridge?  A.  I  saw  them  there.  I  came  out  again  in 
the  afternoon  at  your  request. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  describe  what  you  think  was  the  condition  of  the 
cars  that  passed  over  the  bridge?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know  as  I  can 
describe  them.  I  know  they  were  the  first,  second  and  third  cars. 
The  third  car  was  telescoped  high  up  in  the  end  of  the  second  car. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  trucks  of  the  first  car?  A. 
I  do  not.  I  did  not  charge  my  mind  with  it.  I  thought  that  the 
photographs  would  settle  that  question. 

Q.  How  soon  were  these  first  photographs  taken?  A.  I  saw 
photographers  there  while  I  was  there.  I  don't  know  when  those 
were  taken  that  you  have.  The  only  way  of  arriving  at  that  would 
be  by  inquiring  of  the  party  who  took  them.  I  saw  Mr.  Black  there, 
and  I  saw  one  or  two  amateur  photographers,  and  they  promised  to 
send  me  their  pictures  when  they  got  them  finished.  I  did  not  know 
who  they  were,  but  they  said  the}'  knew  me  and  would  let  me  have 
the  pictures. 

<,;.  Can't  you  recall  what  the  condition  of  those  cars  on  the  em- 
bankment was,  —  how  their  trucks  were  situated,  whether  the}'  had 
trucks,  etc.  ?  A.  I  think  the  second  car  had  no  trucks  under  it.  I 
am  not  clear  about  it,  I  had  so  many  things  to  think  of,  and  the 
master  mechanic  being  present  to  take  charge  of  the  wreck,  I  thought 
he  would  notice  those  things. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examination  at  that  time  as  to  the  cause  of 
the  accident.  A.  Of  course  I  have  an  opinion  what  caused  the 
accident,  but  whether  it  did  cause  it  or  not  I  don't  know  ;  railroad 
accidents  are  so  curious. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  your  opinion?  A.  1  think  that  something  got 
down  from  one  of  the  cars.  Whether  it  was  a  broken  axle  or  a  brake 
beam  I  don't  know,  but  I  am  satisfied  that  there  was  something  went 
down,  and  that  was  the  cause  of  the  destruction  of  the  bridge. 

<,>.    What   leads  you   to   that  conclusion?     A.    I  don't  see  how  it 


APPENDIX.  155 

could  have  got  down  in  any  other  way,  for  1  believe  the  bridge  was 
thoroughly  substantial. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  any  murks  on  any  portion  of  the  bridge  that 
led  you  to  that  conclusion,  did  you?  A.  I  did  not  see  any  marks  on 
the  bridge  at  all;  it  was  covered  up  at  that  time  with  the  ears.  I 
should  have  stated  that  the  first  thing  I  did  when  I  went  out  there, 
or  almost  the  first  thing  I  did,  alter  I  ascertained  that  the  dead  and 
wounded  were  cared  for,  was  to  go  to  the  other  embankment  and  see 
if  the  train  was  off  of  the  track  before  arriving  at  the  bridge. 

Q.    What  did  you  find?     A.    I  did  not  find  the  slightest  sign  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  track  on  the  Boston  side  of  the  bridge? 
A.  I  did  look  at  it  there,  but  I  saw  nothing  to  form  any  opinion 
about,  there  was  so  much  wreckage. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  indication  of  the  trucks  having  passed  over  the 
ties?  A.  I  think  I  did,  but  I  am  not  sure.  I  noticed  one  thing, 
a  piece  of  rail  left  in  one  of  the  joints  that  fell  down.  The 
rails  of  that  bridge  were  sixty  feet  in  length,  and  they  lapped  over 
on  each  embankment ;  and  I  noticed  one  thing  that  I  thought  was 
curious,  that  a  piece  of  the  web  of  the  rail  was  left  in  the  joint,  — 
torn  out. 

Q.  That  was  the  easterly  rail?  A.  I  don't  know  which  one  it 
was  ;  it  was  either  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  Your  judgment  that  the  accident  was  caused  by  something 
dropping  from  the  cars  —  either  a  broken  axle  or  brake  beam,  or 
something  of  that  sort  —  is  founded  upon  the  fact  that  the  bridge 
was  sound,  is  it?     A.    I  did  believe  that  the  bridge  was  thoroughly 

sound. 

Q.    Have  you  examined  those  hangers?     A.    I  have  not. 

Q.    Do  you  know  where  they  came  from?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Supposing  that  those  hangers  came  from  these  points,  sustain- 
ing that  floor  beam  there,  what  should  you  say  in  regard  to  that? 
A.  I  cannot  tell  whether  that  is  a  fresh  break  or  not ;  it  seems  to 
be  covered  with  mud  and  dirt. 

Q.  Well,  examine  both  of  them.  A.  That  seems  to  be  a  fresh 
break  there. 

<).  Do  you  see  any  indications  of  an  old  break  there?  A.  At 
that  corner  there  1  should  call  that  an  old  break  ;  but  that  looks  as 
if  it  was  cvered  with  mud.     I  should  .say  thai  was  a  fresh  break. 

Q.  How  far  through  was  this  one  ('  Y  "  )  an  old  break  ?  A.I  half- 
way through.  I  should  judge  by  the  appearance  that  it  was  broken 
half-way  through.  That  is  an  old  break.  The  rest  of  it  looks  to 
me  as  though  it  was  a  fresh  break  (  "  X  "  ).  One  fracture  is  entirely 
covered  with  mud,  and  the  second  fracture  is  fresh,  all  but  one- 
corner,  I  should  judge. 


156  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  oar?  A.  That  can  bo  ascertained  by 
exact  measurement.  I  should  not  think  it  was  more  than  one- 
eighth  of  it. 

Q.    Docs  the  appearance  of  those  hangers  change  your  opinion  at 

all  in  regard  to  the  cause  of  the  accident?     A.    No,  sir.     There  was 

a  train   passed  over  the  bridge  less  than  an  hour  previous ;  a  train 

ing    of    a    locomotive    and    seven  cars,  coming   in  the   same 

direction. 

(,».  Had  there  been  any  train  over  in  the  opposite  direction? 
A.  No,  sir.  The  first  one  down  was  a  train  leaving  Dedham,  I 
think,  at  6.10.     This  was  the  7  o'clock  train  from  Dedham. 

Q.  And  there  had  been  no  train  out  in  the  mean  time?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  the  G.10  train?  A.  A  locomotive  and  seven 
cars. 

(,>.  What  was  the  weight  of  the  locomotive  of  that  train?  A.  I 
don't  know  the  name  of  the  locomotive  on  that  train. 

Mr.  Richards.     It  was  the  "  John  Lightner." 

The  Witness.     It  weighed  about  thirty-two  tons. 

Q.  How  heavy  was  the  locomotive  of  this  train  that  met  with  the 
disaster?     A.    About  83.000  pounds. 

The  Chairman.  (Referring  to  a  memorandum.)  ''Lightner, 
Rhode  Island  Locomotive  Works,  1872,  twenty-nine  tons."  The  en- 
gine on  this  train  was  the  fc'  D.  B.  Torrey,"  I  think.  "  No.  2,  Rhode 
Island  Locomotive  Works,  built  in  1880,  thirty-two  and  one-half 
tons." 

Q.  How  do  3'on  think  the  accident  may  have  originated,  and  how 
one  thing  led  to  another,  etc  ?  A.  Well,  there  is  an  iron  brake  beam 
that  enters  into  the  case;  then  there  is  a  journal  broken  off -of  an 
axle.  Either  one  of  those  two  would  be  sufficient  to  destroy  the 
bridge  under  certain  circumstances. 

Q.  On  which  side  was  that  broken  journal,  do  you  know?  A.  I 
don't  know. 

Q.  Where  do  you  suppose  that  breaking  of  the  journal  or  the  drop- 
ping of  a  brake  beam  happened,  —  how  far  on  the  bridge?  A.  I 
don't  think  it  would  make  any  difference  where  it  happened  on  the 
bridge,  if  it  happened  at  either  end  or  in  the  centre. 

().  In  what  portion  of  the  train  do  you  think  the  original  accident 
was?  A.  I  have  no  theory.  I  don't  know  whether  Mr.  Richards 
has  located  on  what  car  the  brake  beam  belonged  ;  I  have  not  talked 
with  him  about  it ;  but  he  has  located  where  the  broken  axle  belonged. 

Q.   Where  was  that?     A.    That  was  car  87. 

Q.  What  ear  was  that  on  the  train?  A.  According  to  the  brake- 
man's  testimony  the  other  day,  it  was  the  fifth  car. 


APPENDIX.  157 

O.  Is  there  a  question  about  that  in  your  mind?  A.  Oh,  no;  I 
do  not  question  the  location  of  the  ear  at  all.  I  don't  know  as  any 
one  else  but  he  knows  about  the  position  of  the  ears  in  the  train. 

Q.    You  say  car  87  had  a  broken  what?     A.    A  broken  journal. 

<>.    You  don't  know  on  which  side  of  that  car?     A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  Describe  how  you  think  the  accident  may  have  worked.  V.  u 
have  some  theory  in  regard  to  it.  have  you  not?  A.  Well,  there  are 
a  variety  of  ways  in  which  it  might  work.  A  brake  beam  might  fall 
through  the  crevices  in  the  bridge,  and  tear  the  structure  down.  A 
broken  axle  might  spread  the  track  on  the  bridge  and  tip  it  over.  I 
don't  know  of  any  other.  I  have  seen  so  many  tilings  done  on  a  rail- 
road, that  I  would  hardly  believe  if  I  had  not  seen  them  myself, — 
the  curiosities  of  railroad  accidents. 

Q.  How  about  the  telescoping  of  the  third  car  into  the  second  car 
of  the  train?     A.    I  cannot  account  for  it  at  all. 

Q.    You  saw  it.  didn't  you?     A.    I  saw  it;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  had  the  third  car  telescoped  into  the  second  car? 
A.    I  should  think  it  had  broken  in  two  or  three  feet. 

Q.  You  can  give  no  explanation  of  that?  A.  I  can't  account  for 
that ;   1  have  thought  a  great  deal  about  it. 

Q.  If  the  bridge  had  broken  down  back  of  the  third  car,  or  when 
the  second  'car  was  on  the  bridge,  and  the  second  car  had  struck  some 
of  the  broken  timbers  here,  and  the  third  car  and  the  rest  of  the  train 
had  come  on  top  of  it,  —  might  it  not  have  happened  in  that  way? 
A.  I  can't  say  how  it  could  have  happened.  Particularly  after 
having  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Reed,  I  am  more  than  ever  in 
doubt  about  it  He  says  the  forward  end  of  the  car  went  over  the 
bridge  all  right;  and  how  that  third  car  could  get  above  the  line  of 
the  sills  of  the  second  car  I  don't  know.     I  can't  account  for  it. 

<,).  Is  there  any  difference  in  sound,  in  going  over  this  bridge,  be- 
tween the  central  portion  of  the  bridge  where  the  compression  mem- 
ber is  and  this  portion  from  the  top  of  the  truss  to  the  embankment? 
A.  I  have  always  noticed  that  that  bridge  had  a  very  solid,  substan- 
tial .sound  to  it.  I  have  a  great  many  times  had  a  sensation  at  nvy 
Stomach  on  a  railroad  bridge.  I  have  noticed  when  a  boy,  where  [ 
used  to  live,  in  a  part  of  the  road  there  was  a  ledge  of  rocks  with 
some  two  or  three  inches  of  gravel  over  it,  and  in  the  winter  time  it 
had  a  solid  sound  to  it.  This  bridge  always  impressed  me  a-  being 
very  substantial. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  noticing  the  rattle?  A.  No,  sir;  I  have 
always  had  a  good  opinion  of  that  bridge,  and  thought  it  was  very 
substantial. 

Q.  What  I  wanted  to  get  at  by  my  last  question  was  this: 
Whether   or   not    a    person    going    over    this    bridge    might    think 


158  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

they  had  got  to  the  end  of  the  bridge  from  the  noise,  when  they 
had  simply  struck  this  point  here;  whether  there  is  any  difference 
in  the  sound  in  going  over  that  portion  of  the  bridge,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  that  portion  of  the  bridge?  A.  No,  sir;  I  think 
the  sound  is  uniform.  I  have  always  ridden  over  it  on  the  end  of  the 
train,  and  I  think  the  noise  was  uniform  from  one  end  to  the  other; 
I  have  never  detected  any  difference. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  If  your  theory  is  correct  that  the  train 
was  derailed  immediately  after  it  struck  the  bridge,  it  would  show 
marks  in  some  way;  the  ties  would  show,  very  likely?  A.  I  have 
looked  at  the  ties.  Of  course  they  have  got  all  kinds  of  scars  on 
them.  I  have  had  the  ties  saved,  so  that  they  can  be  examined.  I 
could  not  see  them,  from  the  fact  that  when  I  went  out  there  the  first 
time  they  were  covered  with  the  wreck. 

Q.  But  you  know,  do  you  not,  with  your  railroad  experience,  that 
if  that  train  went  off  of  that  bridge,  it  would  certainly  leave  a  scar, 
which  would  show  whether  it  was  the  flange  of  a  wheel,  a  brake  rod, 
a  brake  beam,  a  broken  journal  or  a  broken  anything  which  belonged 
to  it ;  the  scars  are  all  marked  ;  each  peculiar  cause  of  a  scar  leaves 
its  mark,  so  that  as  a  general  thing  you  can  go  there  and  say,  "There 
is  where  a  brake  rod  fell  through  ;  there  is  where  a  wheel  ran  off,"  — 
is  there  anything  of  thafkind  on  the  ties  that  would  show  you  that  it 
was  a  derailed  train?     A.   Yes  ;  there  were  scars  of  wheels  on  the  ties. 

Q.  Now,  if  it  was  a  brake  beam  that  fell  down,  I  suppose  your 
theory  is  that  it  fell  down  and  bunched  those  ties?  A.  Yes  ;  a  brake 
beam  might  fall  exactly  into  a  hole. 

().  That  is  very  true;  but  if  it  did,  it  would  leave  a  scar? 
A.    There  are  plenty  of  scars  on  those  ties. 

Q.  I  understand.  But  I  want  to  know  if  you  have  examined  your- 
self those  particular  scars;  or  if  you  said,  as  you  looked  at  them, 
••  Here  is  a  general  scarring  all  round."  What  I  want  to  get  at  is,  if 
you  have  come  to  this  conclusion  of  a  derailment  of  that  train  from 
anything  which  you  have  seen,  which  in  your  railroad  experience 
caused  you  to  say  right  off,  "  It  was  the  falling  of  the  brake  beam 
thai  derailed  the  car"?  A.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  the  brake 
beam  until  yesterday.  I  have  not  examined  those  ties  with  that  pur- 
pose. 

().  I  suppose  those  ties  are  where  we  can  see  them?  A.  I  have 
ordered  them  brought  into  Boston,  where  any  one  can  see  them  who 
likes  to  do  so.  They  were  so  covered  up  by  the  cars  that  I  could  not 
examine  them,  and  I  told  the  man  in  charge  of  the  work  to  have  them 
brought  in  so  that  we  could  see  them. 

Q.  Is  there  only  one  broken  journal  in  that  whole  wreck?  A.  I 
believe  that  is  all. 


APPENDIX.  159 

Q.  I  suppose  that  might  have  been  broken  in  falling?  A.  I  don't 
see  how  it  could,  being  on  top  of  the  bridge.  The  bridge  was  under- 
neath the  cars,  and  it  was  found  close  to  the  abutment  this  way. 

Q.  Have  you  any  evidence  that  a  brake  beam  broke  or  fell  off? 
A.  Mr.  Richards  has  a  brake  beam  that  lie  thinks  was  an  element  in 
the  disaster  ;  that  is,  I  suppose  he  does;  I  don't  say  that.  He  will 
give  his  own  testimony. 

Q.  Some  of  those  cars  are  old  numbers,  —  28,  f>0,  etc.  How  was 
the  bottom  work  of  those  cars?  Was  it  three  or  four  beams  right 
through  from  platform  to  platform?  A.  1  can't  tell  you  that;  Mr. 
Richards  can. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams  )  Have  yon  been  able  to  distinguish  upon 
which  car  the  brake  beam  was  broken?  A.  I  don't  know  that ;  Mr. 
Richard's,  1  think,  does. 

Q.    You  think  that  Mr.  Richards  knows?     A.    I  think  he  does. 

Q.  In  preserving  those  sleepers,  do  you  know  whether  any  pains 
have  been  taken  to  keep  them  in  their  order  as  the}-  were  on  the 
bridge?     A.   That  would  be  impossible. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  frame- work  of  the  bridge  on  the  south 
side,  with  a  view  to  seeing  whether  there  had  been  any  derailment? 
By  the  south  side,  I  mean  the  Dedham  side.     A.    No  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  that  a  portion  of  the  bridge  road-bed  was  visible 
as  the  wreck  lay  there?     A.    You  mean  in  the  street? 

Q.  Yes,  in  the  street ;  slanting  down  from  the  abutment  into  the 
street.  It  is  shown  on  one  of  these  photographs.  A.  I  did  not  see 
any  evidence  of  derailment  there  ;  I  did  not  see  any  on  the  other  side 
of  the  abutment. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  that  part  of  the  road-bed  that  was  visible 
above  the  wreck  on  the  south  side?  A.  T  looked  that  over;  of 
course  there  was  a  great  deal  of  wreckage  and  confusion  all  around 
there. 

Q.  That  is  a  portion  of  the  road-bed  shown  in  photograph  No.  1, 
is  it  not,  that  was  originally  upon  the  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  sleepers  of  that  portion  of  the  road-bed? 
A.   No,  I  did  not. 

(,).  Since  that  bridge  was  built,  have  any  special  tests  ever  been 
math',  to  your  knowledge,  besides  the  one  in  1882?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  a  special  test  made  at  the  time  the  bridge  was  put 
up?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    That  made  two,  did  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Have  you  the  records  of  that  test?     A.    I  think  I  have. 

Q.   That  was  made  in  1876?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Were  you  present  when  that  test  was  made?     A.    No,  sir. 


160  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  was?  A.  The  superintendent  of  bridges 
was  present  and  conducted  it. 

Q.  Your  superintendent  of  bridges,  Mr.  George  Folsom?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  in  his  testimony  3-esterday  he  referred 
to  the  test  of  1882?  A.  No;  he  supposed  he  was  referring  to  the 
first  test ;   he  made  a  mistake. 

Q.  Was  not  the  memorandum  to  which  he  referred  the  1882  test? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

(,).  So  thai  the  figures  which  he  gave  were  for  the  1882  test?  A. 
For  the  1882  test. 

Q.  Yrou  will  produce  your  memorandum  of  the  test  of  1876?  A. 
If  I  have  it,  1  will ;  if  I  haven't  it,  it  can  be  obtained. 

Q.  After  you  received  that  notice  from  the  commissioners  did  you 
make  any  changes  whatever  in  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  put  on  any  additional  guard  rails?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  You  believed  there  was  no  necessity  for  guard  rails?  A. 
There  was  no  necessity  for  guard  rails  there  outside. 

Q.  Do  you  not  consider  them  an  additional  security  to  a  bridge? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  I  would  not  put  them  on  if  I  had  my  own  way.  I  look 
upon  them  as  very  dangerous  things. 

n.  Did  you  so  inform  the  commissioners  at  that  time?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  but  on  the  inspection  of  the  road  in  various  years  I  think  I  have 
had  conversations  with  the  various  commissioners  about  the  matter  of 
guard  rails,  the  carrying  on  of  the  superstructures,  etc.  The  exam- 
inations have  been  going  on  a  great  many  years. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  written  response  to  that  letter  from  the  Rail- 
road Commissioners  which  has  been  read?     A.    I  did. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     If  we  have  it,  we  will  produce  it. 

Q.  I  wish  to  ask  you  with  reference  to  one  of  the  witnesses.  Mr. 
Billings  was  fireman  of  the  locomotive  on  the  wrecked  train,  was  he 
not?     A.    No  ;   I  don't  think  that  is  the  name. 

Mr.  Richards.     Yes,  sir  ;  Billings.     He  is  here  now. 

Q.  He  is  the  only  one  of  the  employees  on  the  train  who  has  not 
been  examined?     A.    There  are  two  others,  Drake  and  Smith. 

Q.  Have  you  any  heavier  locomotive  on  the  line  than  the  "  Torrey  "  ? 
A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many?  A.  I  shall  have  to  look  at  authority.  There  is 
no  reason  why  I  should  remember  it.  Here  is  a  list  of  the  locomotives 
on  the  road  :  There  is  the  "  William  R.  Robeson,"  41  tons. 

Q.  Does  that  run  on  the  Dedham  branch?  A.  That  has  been 
there.     Also  the  "  Henry  A.  Whitney,"  45  tons. 

Q.  Has  that  run  over  the  Dedham  branch?  A.  It  has  been  there. 
The  engines  go  where  they  are  needed,  in  case  of  necessity. 


APPENDIX.  161 

Q.  But  you  have  regular  engines  that  run  over  the  Dedham 
branch,  have  you  not?  A.  Oh,  no.  We  are  changing  the  character 
of  our  locomotives  for  the  suburban  travel  to  what  is  called  the 
Forney  type,  double-enders. 

Q.  Don't  you  have  special  engines  for  the  Dedham  trains?  A. 
We  run  any  engine  we  see  fit.  Of  course,  a  special  engine  is  tried  to 
be  kept  for  certain  trains ;  we  try  to  keep  the  same  men  and  engines 
together,  but  no  engine  is  forbidden  to  go  on  any  part  of  the  road. 

Q.  Won't  you  answer  the  question  whether  you  run  regular  engines 
on  the  Dedham  branch  ;  whether  there  are  engines  which  are  confined 
in  their  use  to  the  Dedham  Branch  Railroad?  A.  No,  sir;  we  take 
atn-  engine  that  comes  handy. 

Q.  Do  you  find  any  others  that  are  heavier  than  the  "Torrey"? 
A.  The  '•  Thomas  B.  Wales,"  33  tons.  The  "Whitney"  seems  to 
be  a  heavier  one.  "  George  R.  Minot,"  49  tons  ;  "  George  R.  Rus- 
sell," 29  tons  ;  "  William  Merrill,"  —  the  weight  is  not  here  ;  "  C.  H. 
Wheeler,"  51  J-  tons.     That  is  the  class  of  engine  we  are  using  now. 

Q.  What  engines  were  run  over  the  road  Sunday?  A.  I  don't 
know. 

Q.   That  you  cau  ascertain,  probably  ?     A.    That  I  can  ascertain. 

Q.   And  Saturday?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  on  every  train. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  every  engine  that  run  over  the  road  on  Satur- 
day and  Sunday?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  built  your  other  iron  bridges?  A.  The  largest  bridge  we 
have,  which  is  at  Central  Falls,  was  built  by  the  Edgemore  Company, 
at  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Q.  Who  furnished  the  design?  A.  The  designs  were  furnished 
by  the  same  company.     We  told  them  what  we  wanted. 

Q.    I  simply  asked  you  who  designed  it?     A.    Their  engineer. 

Q.  How  many  iron  bridges  have  you  on  the  Providence  Railroad 
now?  A.  This  Bussej'  bridge  was  an  iron  bridge.  Then  we  go 
along,  and  get  up  into  West  Roxbury,  and  we  cross  two  streets, 
Baker  and  Cass  Streets;  and  those  are  crossed  by  iion  I  beams. 
Then  we  come  to  the  river  between  West  Roxbury  and  Dedham,  and 
that  has  iron  piers,  —  cylinders  with  iron  piers. 

Q.  I  won't  ask  you  to  go  jv  r  the  whole  road  in  detail.  Can't  you 
sa}',  oil-hand,  about  how  i.  ai  y  iron  bridges  you  have  on  the  main 
line  of  the  road?     A.    1  can  only  tell  by  counting  them  up. 

Q.  I  won't  ask  you  to  take  the  time  to  do  that,  if  you  can't  tell  off- 
hand.    A.    I  can't  tell  off-hand. 

Q.  Have  you  built  any  iron  bridges  since  1882?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
one  in  Rhode  Island. 

Q.  Who  built  that  bridge?  A.  That  was  built  by  the  Edgemore 
Iron  Company. 


1G2  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  At  that  time  yon  had  received  information  from  the  commis- 
si uers  that  tl  at  bridge  was  of  a  peculiar  construction.  Did  you  take 
any  pains  to  inquire  of  the  engineer  who  had  charge  of  that  new 
bridge  as  to  the  safety  of  the  Bussey  Bridge'     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  call  it  to  the  attention  of  any  of  the  bridge  engi- 
neers with  whom  you  had  dealings  in  1882?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  no  bridge  engineer  has  ever  been  called 
up  i)  by  the  road  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  the  safety  of  that  bridge? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  freight  trains  have  been  run  over  that 
road?     A.    I  never  knew  that  any  ever  did  run  there. 

<).    Uo  you  know  the  reason  why?     A.   There  is  no  necessity. 
Q.    You  have  freight  running  to  the  stations  on  the  West  Roxbury 
branch,  haven't  you?     A.    No,  sir;  only  at  Spring  Street. 
Q.    Don't  you  deliver  coal  at  Roslindale?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Has  any  one  ever  requested  you  to  allow  the  building  of  a  side 
track   for  the   delivery  of  coal  at  Roslindale?     A.    There  is  a  party 
who  has  within  a  few  months  written  to  me  about  putting  a  coal  yard 
there  at  Roslindale. 

Q.  Did  you  allow  it?  A.  No,  sir.  We  have  in  contemplation 
putting  a  second  track  in  there,  and  I  explained  to  him  that  we  did  not 
know  exactly  how  we  stood. 

Q.  Did  you  write  him  with  respect  to  that?  A.  Yes,  sir;  1  think 
1  did. 

Q.  What  was  the  gentleman's  name?  A.  I  think  it  was  W7hitte- 
more. 

Q.  You  run  ice  from  the  side  track  at  Spring  Street  station,  don't 
you?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  that  freight  is  carried  to  Dedham,  and  then  over  the  Read- 
ville  branch?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  farther  is  that  than  from  Spring  Street  to  the  main 
track  at  Forest  Hills?  A.  1  suppose  it  is  perhaps  two  miles  from 
Dedham  to  Spring  Street. 

Q.  How  far  from  Dedham  to  Readville?  A.  A  little  over  two 
miles  ;  two  and  a  third  miles. 

Q.    Then  it  is  four  and  a  third  miles?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    How  far  from  Readville  to  Forest  Hills?     A.    I  think  Readville 
is  eight  and  a  half  miles  from  Boston,  —  about  four  miles. 

Q.  Have  you,  since  you  opened  this  Dedham  branch,  the  branch 
round  through  Readville,  ever  contemplated  running  freight  from 
Forest  Hills  to  Dedham ?     A.    Well,  contemplation  — 

Q.  You  have  never  done  it?  A.  I  have  never  known  any  freight 
carried  there  since  I  have  been  on  the  road. 

Q.    Why  haven't  you  done  it,  —  because  you  were  afraid  of  the 


APPENDIX.  163 

bridge,  or  because  it  was  better  railroading  to  go  up  to  Dedhara  and 
take  the  freight  by  the  other  road  ?  A.  I  will  explain  it  in  a  few 
words  :  At  Readville  we  Lave  got  a  yard  and  plenty  of  tracks  ;  we 
have  nothing  at  Forest  Hills.  We  keep  an  engine  at  Readville,  and 
at  Dcdliara  there  is  quite  a  manufacturing  place  called  Walnut  Hill, 
and  it  is  more  to  our  convenience  to  take  our  freight  that  way. 

Q.  Is  the  broken  brake  beam  to  which  you  have  referred  pre- 
served?    A.     Yes,  sir;  it  is  down  at  the  station. 

Q.  And  the  two  sections  of  the  beam?  A.  I  don't  think  it  is 
broken.     I  never  saw  it  until  yesterday  ;  it  is  bent  and  cut. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  received  any  notice,  other  than  the  notice  of  the 
falling  of  nuts  from  the  bridge,  from  any  person,  relative  to  the  safety 
of  the  bridge?  A.  1  never  had  the  slightest  hint  from  any  one.  If 
I  had,  I  should  have  paid  attention  to  it. 

Q.  Did  not  your  clerk  report  what  one  of  the  witnesses  said  yes- 
terday,  —  Mr.  Bock?  A.  I  saw  that  this  morning.  I  came  directly, 
3Tou  may  say,  from  Bussey  Bridge  here,  and  I  spoke  to  my  clerk 
about  it,  and  he  said  he  didn't  know  anything  about  it.  I  have  asked 
Mr.  George  Folsom  if  he  ever  heard  anything  of  the  kind.  He 
said  he  thought  he  had  a  letter  from  me  relating  to  this  transaction, 
and  I  have  asked  him  to  find  it,  if  it  is  a  possible  thing. 

Q.  Mr.  Hewins  was  the  designer  of  this  bridge  in  connection  with 
Mr.  George  Folsom.  You  took  pains  to  ask  about  Mr.  Hewins.  Did 
you  take  pains  to  ask  people  who  were  competent  to  give  an  opinion 
as  to  his  ability  as  an  engineer  and  bridge  builder?  A.  Mr.  Richard- 
son, who,  I  took  it,  had  some  connection  wiih  that  concern  out  there. 
I  had  no  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Hewins,  only  just  knew  him  ;  and  all 
my  communications  about  him  were  eminently  satisfactory,  as  a  high- 
toned,  honorable  man,  and  competent  in  his  profession. 

Q.  There  were  nine  cars  on  that  train,  and  how  many  brakemen? 
A.   Three  brakemen  and  three  conductors. 

Q.  Have  you  any  objection  to  giving  the  reasons  why  you  are  op- 
posed to  guard  rails,  inside  or  outside  the  rail?  A.  A  guard  rail 
forms  an  admirable  opportunity  for  malicious  persons  to  put  in  ob- 
structions, and  they  cannot  be  seen  by  the  engineer  very  well.  I 
have  heard  of  coupling  chairs  being  put  in  between  guard  rails,  and 
pieces  of  chairs  ;  and  I  know  very  well  that  my  predecessor  in  office 
and  our  old  master  mechanic  were  very  bitter  against  guard  rails. 
Possibly  I  entertain  some  of  their  prejudices.  I  certainly,  if  I  had 
my  way,  would  not  use  them. 

Q.  Your  principal  objection,  I  suppose,  is  the  opportunity  they 
afford  for  malicious  persons  to  make  obstructions?  A.  They  are 
capital  things  for  malicious  persons. 

Q.    So  are  ties  and  rails  that  are  lying  along  the  road  for  repairs. 


164  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

A.  All  those  things  are  elements  of  danger,  and  they  are  used  occa- 
sionally. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  some  of  the  very  best  managed  railroads  in 
this  country  use  them?  A.  Oh,  yes,  sir;  but  what  we  use  we  think 
is  a  great  deal  better ;  it  is  three  and  a  half  inch  plank. 

Q.  But  that  is  not  a  guard  timber?  A.  Then  we  have  a  guard 
timber  outside  of  that. 

Q.  But  you  do  not  believe  in  guard  rails  nearer  the  rail,  either  in- 
side or  outside?  A.  I  would  not  put  one  on  a  bridge  of  my  own 
free  will. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  several  bridges  have  been  saved  by  those 
guard  rails?  A.  I  don't  know  of  any.  I  know  that  we  have  saved 
our  trains  by  the  system  that  we  use. 

Q.    By  a  plank?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Will  you  explain  how  any  one  could  place 
any  obstruction  between  a  guard  rail  and  the  rail,  if  the  guard  rail  was 
placed  on  the  outside  where  your  plank  is?  A.  I  never  saw  them  on 
the  outside.  All  the  guard  rails  that  I  have  ever  seen  were  always 
on  the  inside. 

Q.  They  could  be  placed  on  the  outside,  just  like  the  plank? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  certainly. 

Q.  There  would  be  no  place,  then,  for  an  obstruction,  any  more 
than  between  a  plank  and  the  rail?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  would  be  a  capi- 
tal place  to  put  in  a  bent  coupling  link  or  anything  of  that  kind,  and 
it  would  lie  there. 

Q.  There  would  be  no  wheel  or  flange  to  run  out  there?  A.  No  ; 
but  a  wheel  would  come  in  contact  with  any  obstacle  put  in  there. 

Q.  The  flange  would  be  on  the  inside?  A.  I  know;  but  the  ob- 
struction would  be  on  top  of  the  rail  just  the  same. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  doubts  in  your  mind  in  regard  to  the 
safety  of  that  bridge?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  always  thought  it  was  a  sub- 
stantial structure. 

Q.  You  never  contemplated  removing  it?  A.  No,  sir;  I  con- 
sidered it  a  permanent  fixture. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  stopping  there  with  a  party  of  gentlemen 
and  saying  that  you  supposed  something  wrould  have  to  be  done,  and 
you  thought  you  would  take  it  out  altogether?  A.  No,  sir ;  I  do 
not. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  ever  notice,  when  you  were 
under  that  bridge,  and  there  was  a  train  going  over  it,  any  unusual 
rattle  of  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir  ;  it  was  a  very  stiil  bridge. 

Q.  The  iron  didn't  rattle  more  than  is  customary  in  the  best-con- 
structed bridges?     A.    I  don't  think  it  rattled  so  much.     It  was  a 


APPENDIX.  165 

very  still  structure.  Of  course,  as  I  said  before,  there  is  never  any 
very  rapid  travelling  over  it ;  it  is  impossible,  in  the  order  of  business. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Had  you  intended  to  run  a  double  track 
over  that  bridge?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.   As  it  was  before  the  accident?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  "Without  changing  the  other  track?  A. 
Yes,  sir ;  we  considered  it  safe. 

Q.  You  say  the  Edgemore  Iron  Works  are  making  an  iron  bridge 
for  use  in  Rhode  Island?     A.    No  ;  I  say  they  have  built  one  for  us. 

Q.  You  told  them,  or  in  some  way  they  were  told,  what  was  wanted, 
and  they  furnished  the  plans  and  specifications?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  we 
gave  them  the  specifications  of  what  we  wanted. 

Q.  Not  giving  them  any  specific  design,  only  the  work  that  it  was 
to  do?  A.  Well,  of  course  there  is  a  great  variety  of  bridges,  and 
our  superintendent  of  bridges  selects  what  he  wants. 

Q.  But  he  selects  a  regular  design  ?  He  does  not  have  a  special 
design  drawn  for  the  case?     A.   No,  sir  ;  no  special  design. 

Q.  He  trusts  the  manufacturing  company  to  do  the  work?  A.  Ye?, 
sir. 

Q.  With  regard  to  the  views  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners, —  you 
have  exchanged  views,  I  take  it,  with  the  Railroad  Commissioners  a 
good  many  times,  with  regard  to  the  various  parts  of  your  road?  A. 
There  is  an  annual  examination  made. 

Q.  At  that  annual  examination  you  go  over  the  road  with  them? 
A.    I  think  I  have  never  failed  to  be  with  them. 

Q.  And  you  discuss  verbally  the  various  questions  which  arise  and 
the  various  suggestions  that  the\r  make?     A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  ever  going  with  them  over  this  bridge?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  get  off  and  examine  it  with  them?  A.  The  first  com- 
missioner, the  one  that  was  on  the  board  the  longest,  who  attended  to 
bridges,  was  Mr.  Briggs.  He  was  always  very  careful  in  examining 
all  bridges.  I  don't  think  there  is  an  instance  where  he  failed  to  go 
under  the  bridges  and  look  them  all  over.  I  have  seen  him  crawl 
through  them.  That  was  mostly  in  the  time  when  we  had  wooden 
structures. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  go  over  this  bridge  with  him?  A.  The  bridge  was 
constructed  in  187G  ;  Mr.  Briggs  was  a  commissioner  up  to  1880,  I 
think  ;  the  records  will  show. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  going  over  this  bridge  with  him  ? 
A.  Oh,  yes  ;  I  recollect  Mr.  Briggs  very  well.  He  examined  this 
bridge  several  times. 

Q.  He  was  a  practical  bridge  builder?  A.  He  was  a  practical 
bridge  builder,  and,  I  think,  a  civil  engineer  by  profession. 


1G6  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  bis  criticising  the  bridge  or  finding 
any  fault  with  it?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  don't  tbink  be  ever  found  any  fault 
with  it. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  this  bridge  since  that  time,  in  company 
with  the  commissioners?  A.  I  tbink  that  the  successor  of  Mr.  Briggs 
was  Mr.  Herschel ;  I  think  be  examined  it  two  years. 

Q.  Did  be  ever  make  any  criticism  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  recollect 
of  no  unfavorable  criticism  by  Mr.  Herschel  of  that  bridge. 

Q.  Then,  with  the  exception  of  the  letter  which  has  been  read 
here,  you  don't  recollect  of  bearing  any  criticism  from  the  Railroad 
Commissioners?     A.    I  never  beard  any  at  all. 

Q.  Have  any  other  engineers  or  practical  bridge  builders,  as  far  as 
you  know,  ever  criticised  the  character  of  the  structure  or  its  design? 
A.    Not  in  my  hearing,  or  that  I  ever  heard  of. 

Q.  Among  the  reasons  for  not  carrying  freight  up  that  way  is  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  heavier  grade,  is  it  not?  A.  That  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it ;  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  convenience  and  economy. 

Q.  You  noticed,  I  think  you  said,  that  the  web  of  one  of  those 
sixty-foot  rails  was  drawn  out  of  the  fish  plate  at  this  end  of  the 
bridge,  and  the  rail  brought  up  on  to  the  bank?  A.  No;  I  didn't 
say  that.  I  said  that  I  noticed  something  that  was  a  curiosity  ;  which 
was,  that  a  piece  of  the  web  of  one  of  the  long  rails  on  the  bridge 
was  left  in  the  joint,  and  the  rail  was  down,  I  think,  leaning  against 
the  wall.     The  rails  lapped  over  on  the  embankment. 

Q.  Was  that  one  of  the  rails  at  this  end  of  the  bridge?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  On  which  side?  A.  I  tbink  it  is  the  easterly  rail,  but  I 
wouldn't  be  sure.     It  is  there  now  ;   it  can  be  seen. 

Q.  Where  was  the  rail  when  you  saw  it?  A.  It  was  leaning 
against  the  abutment. 

Q.  Does  it  show  on  the  photographs  here?  A.  I  don't  know;  I 
have  hardly  looked  at  the  photographs. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  noticing  whether  that  easterly  rail  was  up 
on  the  bank  or  down  in  the  road?  A.  I  looked  over  the  precipice 
and  saw  it  there,  and  saw  a  piece  had  been  torn  out  of  the  rail  and 
left  in  the  joint. 

Q.  Then  is  it  not  that  westerly  rail  that  you  are  speaking  of,  —  the 
one  that  shows  there  in  that  photograph?     A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.  The  rail  that  is  torn  is  the  easterly  rail?  A.  I  understand 
from  Mr.  Richards  that  the  rail  is  up  on  the  bank.  I  didn't  go  down 
into  the  pit  at  all.  That  is  the  curious  fact  that  I  wanted  to  bring  out 
by  Mr.  Folsom,  but  he  didn't  know  it.  It  seems  we  shall  have  to  call 
Mr.  Richards. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     You  spoke  of  the  Trenton  Bridge  Com- 


APPENDIX.  107 

pan}*.  You  must  have  meant  the  Trenton  Iron  Works  ?  A.  I  had 
an  impression  that  there  was  a  Trenton  Bridge  Company.  I  know 
there  is  a  Trenton  Iron  Company  ;  I  think  it  is  the  Trenton  Iron  & 
Bridge  Company. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  know  what  the  construction  was 
in  this  joint  here  at  the  top  of  the  junction  of  those  two  compression 
members  before  the  accident?     A.   No  ;  I  knew  it  was  a  casting. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  this  cross  piece  was  supported?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  man}- of  these  hangers  supported  that  beam? 
A.    No,  I  don't. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  they  were  covered  up  by  the  casing  so  that 
they  couldn't  be  seen?     A.    Yes  ;  I  knew  that  they  were  in  the  box. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  anxiety  in  your  mind  in  regard  to  these 
castings?     A.    Never. 

Q.  Or  think  that  there  ought  to  be  some  way  of  examining 
them?     A.    I  never  had  the  slightest  anxiety  about  them. 

Q.  Do  you  think,  if  you  had  seen  these  hangers,  that  you  would 
have  had  any  anxiety?     A.    Seen  them  in  the  box? 

A.  Yes,  their  general  make  and  structure.  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  should 
have  thought  they  would  have  been  good  for  the  purposes  for  which 
they  were  made. 

Q.  You  didn't  know  the  construction  of  the  bridge  at  that  point, 
nor  how  that  beam  was  suspended.  A.  No;  I  am  not  particularly 
familiar  with  bridge  construction. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Aciiorn.)  Was  the  test  made  in  1882  made  in  re- 
sponse to  the  suggestion  of  the  commissioners?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  test  in  conformity  with  their  suggestion?  Was  it 
such  a  test  as  they  suggested?  A.  I  don't  know  ;  no,  I  hardly  think 
it  was  as  they  suggested.  But  Ave  made  the  test,  and  we  made  a  test 
that  was  satisfactory  to  us. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  say  that  it  was  what  they  recommended?  A.  I 
don't  know  what  they  recommended. 

Q.   The  test  was  made  by  Mr.  George  Folsom?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  recommendation  with  regard  to  subsequent  tests  was  not 
complied  with?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  George  Folsom  ever  had  any  knowl- 
edge that  such  recommendation  was  made?  A.  Oh,  yes ;  it  was  a 
matter  talked  over  between  ourselves.  We  meet  frequently  and  talk 
over  our  affairs,  —  the  bridge  business  and  stations. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Why  did  you  not  make  subsequent  tests? 
A.  Well,  the  report  came  in  my  conversations  with  Mr.  Folsom, 
that  everything  was  satisfactory  and  all  right,  and  the  bridge  was 
discharging  its  duty,  and  there  was  no  need  of  any  further  tests;  it 


168  BUSSEY   BKIDGE   DISASTER. 

showed  no  signs  of  failure  ;  its  condition  was  good,  and  we  thought 
there  was  uo  need  of  any  further  tests. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  could  not  make  such  tests  except  on 
Sunday,  I  suppose,  could  you?     A.    No,  sir. 

Alfred  E.  Billings — sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Were  you  on  the  7  a.  m.  train  from  Ded- 
ham,  Monday  morning?     A.    Yes. 

Q.    What  is  your  residence?     A.    Dedham. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  fireman?  A.  About  five  years  on 
this  road,  and  one  year  on  the  New  York  &  New  England. 

Q.  And  before  that?  A.  I  worked  down  in  East  Dedham,  in  a 
mill. 

Q.  When  did  3'ou  first  notice  anything  wrong?  A.  I  didn't  notice 
anything  until  we  got  to  the  Boston  end  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Exactly  what  happened  tben  ?  A.  I  had  one  foot  on  the  ten- 
der, resting  my  weight  on  it,  and  the  other  foot  in  the  engine  ;  and  I 
should  judge  about  over  this  end  of  the  abutment  I  felt  a  shock  that 
very  nearly  threw  me  off  my  feet,  and  heard  a  loud  snap,  and  then  I 
raised  up  and  looked  back  and  we  had  broken  apart  from  the  forward 
car  and  were  running  away  from  it.  The  forward  car  looked  to  me  as 
though  it  was  off  the  track,  and  Mr.  White,  he  reversed  the  engine 
and  was  stopping,  when  I  told  him  for  God's  sake  to  go  to  Forest 
Hills  for  help,  and  we  went  to  Forest  Hills.  I  jumped  off  and  tele- 
graphed for  doctors  and  fi>r  help,  and  got  Mr.  Prince  to  run  his  train 
full  of  passengers  up  there  and  we  followed  right  up  behind. 

Q.   Which  way  did  that  shock  throw  you?     A.    Into  the  engine. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  motion  of  the  engine  and  of  the 
tender  at  that  time?     A.    Well,  I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  nature  of  a  stop?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  as  though  it  was 
cheeked  like  that  (striking  his  hands  together). 

Q.  Was  it  the  engine  that  was  stopped  or  the  tender  that  was 
stopped,  or  what?  A.  I  couldn't  tell  what  it  was  that  was  stopped  ; 
]  should  think  it  was  the  tender. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  in  regard  to  the  forward  end  of  the 
engine  being  thrown  up  on  the  tender,  the  engine  dropping  to  the 
rc:\r?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  have  noticed  such  a  thing  if  it  had  happened? 
A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.  How  soon  do  }'ou  suppose  that  you  looked  to  see  about  the  con- 
nection between  the  tender  and  the  first  car?  How  far  from  the 
abutment  had  you  got  at  that  time?     A.    Probably  ten  feet. 

Q.  When  do  you  think  the  engine  parted  from  the  first  car? 
A.    About  a  car  length  from  the  abutment. 


APPENDIX.  169 

Q.  Not  at  the  abutment,  but  after  passing  the  abutment? 
A.    Yes,  I  should  think  so. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  of  the  rest  of  the  accident?  A.  I  could  see 
the  forward  cars  off  the  track,  and  one  car  shoot  out  to  the  left  and 
go  over  the  bridge,  or  go  down  ;  I  don't  know  as  it  went  over. 

Q.  "Which  one  was  that;  have  you  any  idea?  A.  I  couldn't  tell 
you ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  any  car  got  on  to  the  abutment  and  then 
was  pulled  back?  A.  I  can't  tell  you  that.  We  never  stopped  at 
all ;  we  went  right  straight  to  Forest  Hills. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  got  back?  A.  Went  down  and 
rendered  what  assistance  I  could.  I  helped  take  out  eight ;  took  one 
man  that  was  alive  from  the  top  of  a  car. 

Q.  How  do  you  mean  from  the  top?  A.  Well,  he  was  on  top  of 
the  whole  business, —  on  top  of  a  car  ;  I  don't  know  how  he  got  there  ; 
he  was  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the  car. 

Q.    Was  he  seriously  injured?     A.    I  should  think  he  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  name?  A.  I  don't  know  ;  he  was  an  Irish- 
man, kind  of  an  old  man. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  work?  A.  I  went  right  down  on  the 
Boston  end  of  the  bridge  there,  on  this  end,  down  in  the  street,  near 
the  abutment. 

Q.  Towards  the  front  end  or  rear  end  of  the  train  ?  A.  The  front 
end.  I  worked  there  a  while  and  then  I  went  to  look  for  my  brother. 
I  knew  he  was  on  the  train.  I  just  happened  to  think  of  him  and  I 
went  to  look  for  him. 

Q.    Did  you  find  him?     A.   I  did. 

Q.    Was  he  hurt?     A.    Not  very  bad. 

Q.    What  car  was  he  in?     A.    In  the  smoking  car. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  afterwards  the  condition  of  the  cars  on  the 
abutment  at  the  Boston  end?  A.  I  noticed  that  the  third  car  was 
pretty  badly  telescoped  ;  that  was  the  last  car  on  the  embankment. 

Q.  At  which  end?  A.  On  this  end  ;  that  is  the  last  car  that  came 
over. 

Q.  The  front  end  ?  A.  No,  the  last  end  ;  well,  the  whole  car  was 
pretty  badly  telescoped. 

Q.    Had  it  its  trucks  under  it?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  where  the  trucks  were  ?  A.  Not  from  that  car. 
I  don't  know  where  the  trucks  belonged,  but  I  saw  one  set  of  trucks 
lying  half-way  down  the  bank,  holding  by  the  brake  rod. 

Q.  You  didn't  notice  whether  they  were  the  trucks  of  that  car  or 
some  other  car?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  whether  the  trucks  of  that  third  car  were 
on  the  embankment  or  not?     A.    No,  sir. 


170  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.    Nor  the  trucks  of  the  second  car?     A.    I  can't  tell  you. 
.  Q.    Didn't  examine  it  carefully  ?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Did  you  examine  any  portion  of  the  car  carefully  to  see  exactly 
what  its  condition  was  and  what  caused  it?     A.    I  didn't. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  as  to  what  was  the  cause  of  the  accident? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  primary  cause  was  the  giving  way  of  the 
bridge,  or  the  breaking  of  something  on  the  train?  A.  I  couldn't 
tell. 

Q.  Haven't  you  got  an  idea,  an  opinion?  A.  No  ;  it  don't  always 
do  to  express  one's  opinion. 

Q.  Well,  it  will  do  here.  A.  I  don't  doubt  that;  I  don't  know 
whether  it  was  the  bridge  went  down,  or  what  it  was. 

Q.  You  needn't  be  afraid  to  express  any  opinion  which  you  have 
in  regard  to  it.  A.  I  should  think  it  was  the  bridge,  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned  ;  I  don't  know.  I  should  think,  from  what  Mr.  White  said, 
and  from  what  I  know  myself,  that  the  bridge  was  going  down  while 
we  were  on  it. 

Q.  Now,  as  to  whether  there  was  any  cause  for  the  bridge  going  down. 
Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  whether  the  bridge  gave  way  from  the 
simple  weight  of  the  cars,  or  whether  there  was  some  derailment  or 
dropping  of  a  brake  bar  or  something  of  that  kind  ?  A.  That  I  don't 
know  ;  but  I  shouldn't  think  that  the  dropping  of  a  brake  bar  from 
the  train  would  affect  the  engine  any. 

Q.  Was  there  any  derailment  of  the  engine  before  it  left  the  bridge  ? 
A.   No,  sir. 

Q.    It  didn't  get  derailed  at  all?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Do  you  think  the  bridge  gave  way  at  all  before  the  engine  left 
it?     A.    That  I  don't  know ;  I  should  think  it  had,  but  I  don't  know. 
Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     Was  the  snap  that  you  heard  on  your  side 
or  the  other  side?     A.   I  can't  tell.     It  sounded  like  beneath  me. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  your  tender  since  then  to  see  if  there  were 
any  marks  on  the  wheels,  axles,  or  anything  which  would  go  to  show 
that  the  engine  had  hit  the  embankment  on  this  side?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  You  take  care  of  the  engine,  don't  you?  A.  No,  sir,  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  that  at  all ;  the  engineer  attends  to  that. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Your  judgment  that  you  began  to  go  down 
while  you  were  on  the  bridge  is  not  in  consequence  of  any  sensation 
that  3'ou  were  going  down  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

<,».  Nor  of  any  feeling  at  the  time  that  you  were  going  down?  A- 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  of  any  opinion  that  you  formed  then,  is  it  ?  It  is  an  opinion 
that  you  have  formed  since  from  the  facts  that  you  have  heard?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  171 

Q.  Not  merely  from  facts  that  you  knew  at  the  time,  but  from 
facts  that  you  have  picked  up  since,  like  the  rest  of  us?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  from  my  own  experience. 

Q.  What  was  there  in  your  own  experience  that  leads  you  to  think 
that  the  bridge  began  to  go  down  before  you  left  it?  A.  The  strik- 
ing of  the  tender. 

Q.  You  think  the  tender  struck  something?  A.  I  know  it  did. 
It  struck  hard  enough  to  nearly  take  me  off  of  my  feet. 

Q.  You  mean  that  the  wheels  of  the  tender  struck  something  hard? 
A.    I  suppose  so.     I  don't  know  what  else  it  was. 

Q.    Was  that  what  caused  you  to  look  up?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   A  feeling  as  if  the  tender  had  struck  something?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  looked  up  you  saw  you  were  detached  from  the 
train,  did  you?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  the  train  was  off  the  track?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  seeing  some  of  the  cars  going  off  to  your  left ; 
you  mean  j-our  left  as  you  looked  back?  A.  No;  I  mean  my  right 
as  I  looked  back. 

Q.  Were  those  cars  towards  the  rear  of  the  train,  or  the  first  two  or 
three  cars?  A.  I  can't  tell  what  cars  they  were.  I  know  they  were 
not  the  first  cars. 

Q.  Did  they  seem  to  you  to  go  off  the  bridge?  A.  I  can't  tell 
what  they  were  going  off  of;  they  were  going  down.  I  saw  them  go 
down. 

Q.  Then  when  you  say  you  saw  the  cars  go  down,  you  mean  you 
saw  the  bridge  go  down?  A.  No  ;  I  didn't  see  the  bridge  at  all ;  it 
was  the  cars  that  I  saw. 

Q.  You  looked  up  as  soon  as  you  could  after  you  felt  this  shock, 
didn't  you?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  looked  up  you  found  that  you  were  loose  and  that 
the  first  car  appeared  to  be  off  the  track,  didn't  you?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Could  you  see  the  second  and  third  cars?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  But  wherever  you  were  at  that  time  you  were  free  of  the  train? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  feel  confident  that  that  shock 
which  the  tender  received  could  not  have  been  the  result  of  a  shock 
to  some  other  portion  of  the  train,  stopping  it?  A.  I  can't  tell  any- 
thing about  that.  It  sounded  to  me  as  if  it  was  on  the  tender,  but 
whether  it  was  or  not  I  don't  know.     That  was  the  way  it  felt  to  me. 

Q.    Felt  as  if  it  was  on  the  tender?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Might  it  not  have  been  from  some  other  portion  of  the  train? 
A.    I  don't  think  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  nature  of  a  jar?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  just  like  going  off 
of  a  turn-table,  only  harder. 


172  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  You  have  stated,  if  I  have  yon  correctly, 
that  from  what  you  saw  and  what  Mr.  White  said  you  thought  the 
bridge  was  going  down  when  you  were  on  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  other  than  you  have  described  that  indicated 
to  you  that  the  bridge  was  going  down  while  you  were  on  it?  A. 
Nothing. 

Q.    Nothing  more  than  you  have  described?     A.   No,  sir. 
Q.    What  did  Mr.  White  say  that  led  you  to  believe  that?     A.   He 
spoke  of  the   forward   end   of  the   engine   striking   something   and 
rising  up. 

Q.  Was  that  shock  felt  while  you  were  still  on  the  bridge?  A.  I 
can't  tell  you  that.  On  the  rail  just  at  this  end  of  the  bridge,  as  near 
as  I  can  judge. 

Q.   Over  the  abutment?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  speak  of  being  over  the  abutment,  you  mean  the 
upper  part  of  the  abutment  and  not  the  shelf?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Did  you  notice  anything  unusual  as  the 
engine  passed  on  to  the  bridge  at  the  further  end?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.    Which  way  were  you  facing  when  this  shock  came  ?     A.   Facing 
towards  Mr.  White,  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  engine. 
Q.    You  were  looking  forward  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    When  you  looked  back  could  you  look  by  the  cars  directly 
behind  the  engine  so  as  to  see  the  other  parts  of  the  train?     A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.   There  is  a  curve  at  the  bridge,  is  there  not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     At  the  bridge?     A.    Well,  there   is   a 
curve  all  the  way  around  there,  I  suppose,  as  far  as  I  know. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  This  snap  that  you  heard,  was  that  a 
sound  that  appeared  to  come  from  your  engine  or  tender?  A.  It 
seemed  to  come  from  below. 

Q.   Under  the  tender?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  came  at  the  same  time,  I  understand,  that  the  shock 
came?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  how  many  cars  you  saw  go  down?  A.  Only 
one. 

Q.  And  that  was  from  the  further  end  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  can't 
tell  what  end  of  the  bridge  it  was.  I  should  judge  it  was  about 
middle  way. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  the  smoker?  A.  No,  sir;  I  didn't  see  the 
smoker. 

Q.  The  car  that  you  saw  go  down  went  towards  the  left? 
A.    Towards   the  left,  facing  towards  Boston. 

Q.    Now,  can  you  state,  after  having  seen  the  positions  of  the  cars 


APPENDIX.  173 

afterwards,  which  car  it  was  you  saw  go  over?  A.  No,  sir,  I  can't; 
I  can't  tell  which  car  it  was. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Can  you  recall  now  whether  that  car 
which  you  saw  go  over  had  the  appearance  of  runniug  off  or  of 
toppling  over?  A.  That  I  can't  say.  I  saw  it  go  out  there  ;  that  is 
all  I  know. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  when  you  saw  it  that  the  bridge  was  down? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  it  occurred  to  you  before  that  the  bridge  was  down? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  there  was  nothing  in  the  motion  of  that  car  which  you  saw 
going  off  the  west  side  of  the  bridge  which  suggested  that  the  bridge 
was  down  ?  A.  That  was  the  first  thing  I  thought  of,  that  the  bridge 
was  down. 

Q.   You  did  think  of  that,  then?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  In  going  over  that  bridge  in  the  past 
have  you  ever  noticed  any  swinging  of  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Noticed  any  jarring  similar  to  that  which  you  felt  on  Monday, 
only  lighter?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Noticed  an}- jar  at  all  in  going  off  of  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Can  you  state  where  the  bell  rope  was 
broken?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  the  bell  on  the  engine  rang?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  You  cannot  recall  now  what  part  of  the  rope  was  broken?  A. 
I  know  there  was  some  rope  behind,  but  how  much  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  draw  the  rope  into  the  engine?  A.  No,  sir.  The 
rope  was  broken  off  and  there  was  no  rope  on  there  when  we  got  to 
Boston. 

Q.  Then  the  rope  must  have  broken  off  near  the  engine?  A.  It 
broke  at  the  bell. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Has  there  ever  been  an}T  anxiety  among 
you  young  men  engaged  in  running  the  cars  in  regard  to  the  safety 
of  this  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Adjourned  to  Saturday,  at  9.30. 


174  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

FIFTH    DAY. 

Saturday,  March  19,  1887. 

The  Board  met  at  9.30. 

The  Chairman.  The  Board  appreciates  the  anxiety  of  the  pub- 
lic that  this  disaster  should  be  investigated  with  the  greatest  thorough- 
ness. It  is  the  intention  of  the  Board  to  fulfil  every  expectation  and 
desire  of  the  public  in  that  respect.  We  have  adopted  a  course  in 
this  investigation  which  We  believe  is  based  upon  reason,  and  which 
is  likely  to  produce  the  most  satisfactory  and  the  most  intelligent 
explanation  of  the  disaster.  That  course  has  been,  in  the  first  place, 
to  examine  the  employees  of  the  railroad  who  were  on  the  train  at  the 
time  of  the  disaster ;  then  to  examine  the  officials  of  the  road  who 
were  responsible  for  the  road-bed,  for  the  bridge  and  for  the  rolling 
stock  ;  then  to  examine  all  those  people  who  are  represented  to  have 
discovered  defects  in  the  bridge,  from  loose  nuts  or  other  cause,  in 
the  past ;  then  to  examine  the  passengers  on  the  train  as  to  their  ex- 
perience ;  and,  Anally,  to  put  on  the  experts,  one  of  whom  was  em 
ployed  by  the  Commission  on  the  morning  of  the  accident,  another  of 
whom  was  employed  by  the  railroad  company,  and  several  of  whom 
have  made  independent  examinations  on  their  own  account,  — 
giving  them  the  benefit  of  all  the  evidence  which  is  before  the  Com- 
mission, so  that  they  may  express  their  opinion  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  details  of  the  disaster.  We  believe  that  that  is  the 
best  course  to  bring  about  a  satisfactoiy  result  of  the  investiga- 
tion. 

George  Richards — recalled. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  One  of  the  two  cars  in  the  middle  of  the 
train,  either  54  or  87,  as  I  understand  it,  had  cane  seats.  Do  you 
know  which  one  it  was?  A.  I  am  not  certain  with  regard  to  it,  but 
I  think  it  was  87.  I  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  put  that  in.  I 
put  in  every  item  that  I  considered  important. 

Q.  Certain  passengers  know  they  were  in  that  car  with  cane  seats, 
and  we  want  to  know  whether  that  was  the  fourth  or  fifth  car  in  the 
train.  Anything  which  the  road  can  furnish  iu  regard  to  that,  the 
Commission  would  like  to  have.  One  statement  which  was  made 
with  regard  to  the  make-up  of  the  train  was,  that  the  first  car  was  52  ; 
second,  18;  third,  28;  fourth,  54  ;  fifth,  87.  Now,  if  there  is  any 
evidence  that  will  determine  that  question,  what  the  order  of  the  cars 
was,  whether  54  came  before  87  or  after  it,  and  also  which  of  those 


APPENDIX.  175 

cars  had  cane  seats,  we  would  like  to  have  it.  A.  I  think  the  order 
54  and  87  was  fixed  by  one  of  the  witnesses. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  something  in  the  testimony  which  led 
me  to  think  there  was  a  question  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  Putnam.  There  was  a  question,  but  that  was  fixed  by  a  later 
witness. 

Mr.  Richards.  I  feel  quite  sure  that  54  had  plush  and  87  cane 
seats  ;  but  I  am  not  positive. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  be  kind  enough,  Mr.  Putnam,  to  furnish 
us  with  information  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  will  have  such  inquiry  made  at  Dedham  as  is 
possible. 

The  Chairman.  Also  as  to  the  seats  in  the  cars,  whether  either  of 
them  had  cane  seats  or  not. 

Q.  Is  this  a  statement  made  by  you  in  regard  to  the  cars? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.     The  record  is  as  follows  :  — 

Car  No.  1.  Built  by  Boston  and  Providence  Company,  June,  1872  ;  had 
six  stringers;  last  overhauled,  Oct.  18,  1882. 

Car  18.  Built  by  Bradley,  July,  1871 ;  had  six  stringers  ;  last  overhauled 
May  14,  1886. 

Car  28.  Built  by  Bradley  in  1860 ;  had  cross  framing  and  no  middle 
stringers;  rebuilt  by  the  Boston  and  Providence  Company,  1871;  last 
overhauled,  Dec.  30,  1885. 

Car  52.  Built  by  Bradley,  1870;  had  six  stringers;  rebuilt  by  Boston 
and  Providence  Company,  October,  1884,  new  trucks,  standard  axles;  last 
overhauled,  March  12,  1887. 

Car  54.  Built  by  Bradley,  1870;  rebuilt  by  Boston  and  Providence 
Company,  March  20,  1886;  had  six  stringers,  and  iron  brake-beams; 
last  overhauled  when  rebuilt;  it  then  had  new  trucks,  with  standard 
axles. 

Car  80.  Built  by  the  Wasson  Company,  March  1880;  had  six  stringers; 
last  overhauled,  Oct.  18,  1886. 

Car  81.  Built  by  the  Wasson  Company,  March,  1880  ;  had  six  stringers  ; 
last  overhauled,  March  16,  1886. 

Car  82.  Built  by  the  Wasson  Company,  March,  1880;  had  six  stringers; 
last  overhauled,  Oct.  23,  1886. 

Car  87.  Built  by  the  Wasson  Company,  February,  1882  ;  had  six  string- 
ers ;  last  overhauled,  Jan.  11,  1887,  when  it  had  all  new  axles,  with  30-inch 
wheels. 

When  the  cars  are  overhauled,  all  the  draw  and  buffing  gear  is  exam- 
ined, screwed  and  bolted  up;  all  slack  taken  up,  the  trucks  are  removed, 
every  bolt  screwed  up,  every  part  examined;  wheels  and  axles  examined 
and  changed  if  needed. 

(Signed)  George  Richards. 


176  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

We  have  had  submitted  also  a  statement  by  Mr.  Folsoin,  the 
superintendent,  in  regard  to  the  locomotives  which  went  over  the 
bridge  on  Sunday,  the  13th:  — 

Locomotives  "  Moses  B.  Ives"  and  "John  Winthrop"ran  at  9.30  a.m. 
from  Dedhani  to  Boston,  with  six  cars;  12.45,  from  Boston  to  Dedham,  with 
eight  cars;  5.30,  from  Boston  to  Dedham,  with  six  cars;  2  p.m., from  Ded- 
ham to  Boston,  with  six  cars ;  6.30  r.  m.,  from  Dedham  to  Boston,  with 
seven  cars ;  10  p.  m  ,  from  Boston  to  Dedham,  with  eight  cars. 

Mr.  Aciiorn.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom  whether  two 
engines  have  ever  been  run  over  that  bridge  together,  either  in  con- 
nection with  snow-ploughs  or  in  any  other  way  ? 

Mr.  Folsom.  I  can't  answer  that  question.  I  am  pretty  sure  they 
have.     It  can  be  easily  ascertained. 

Mr.  Achorn.  I  would  like  to  know  if  it  isn't  the  fact  that  two 
locomotives  have  been  run  over  the  road  in  connection  with  snow- 
ploughs,  and  that  when  they  got  to  this  bridge  one  engine  passed 
over  alone,  and  then  the  other  followed  with  the  train  ? 

Mr.  Folsom.     I  will  ascertain. 

Adjourned  to  Monday,  March  21,  at  2  o'clock. 


SIXTH     DAY. 

Monday,  March  21,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  2.25. 

Henry  A.  G.  Pomeroy—  sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence ?  A.  Highland  station, 
West  Roxbury. 

Q.  Your  occupation?  A.  Civil  engineer;  have  been  railroad 
superintendent. 

Q.    Of  what  railroad?     A.    New  York  &  New  England. 

Q.  How  long  ag)  was  that,  and  for  how  long?  A.  About  ten  or 
eleven  years  ago,  for  two  3-ears. 

Q.  Since  then  what  have  you  been  doing?  A.  Following  my  pro- 
fession. 

Q.    Of  civil  engineer?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  scene  of  the  accident  on  Monday  last?  A.  I 
was. 


APPENDIX.  177 

Q.  "What  did  you  find  there?  A.  T  arrived  there  about  half-past 
eight  in  the  morning,  coming  from  Highland  station.  T  saw  the  cars 
in  the  road,  and  I  saw  there  was  nothing  I  could  do  to  relieve  any  one 
there.  I  commenced  to  look  up  on  the  top  of  the  abutment  for  some 
signs  that  would  lead  me  to  discover  the  cause  of  the  accident.  I 
found  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  southeast  corner  of  the  southerly 
abutment,  towards  Dedham,  a  truck,  which  evidently  came  out  (if  one 
of  'the  cars  which  had  gone  down,  but  no  signs  of  any  derailment.  I 
also  found  a  brake  rod  bent  like  a  horseshoe  lying  across  the  track 
quite  close  to  the  abutment.  It  then  occurred  to  me  that  a  brake  bur 
was  the  cause  of  the  trouble.  Since  then  I  have  learned  that  a  brake 
hanger  has  been  found  about  three  hundred  feet  back  from  that  abut- 
ment. 

Q.    You  didn't  find  it  yourself?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  did  find  it?  A.  It  was  an  emphryee  of  the 
road  ;  I  don't  know  his  name. 

Q.  The  trucks  were  how  far  down  the  abutment?  A.  They  were 
on  the  right-hand  side,  on  top  of  the  abutment. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  What  do  you  mean  by  the  right-hand  side? 
A.  Coming  in  ;  I  should  have  said  east,  —  on  the  easterly  corner  of 
the  Dedham  abutment ;    that  will  fix  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  And  the  brake  rod  was  where  ?  A.  Right 
across  the  track,  bent  like  a  horseshoe,  with  the  points  towards  the 
abutment. 

Q.    Are  you  sure  it  was  a  brake  rod?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Is  it  in  that  photograph?  A.  I  don't  see 
it. 

Q.    Is  it  in  that?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  in  that?  A.  No,  sir;  it  didn't  lie  so  that  it  could  be 
shown  in  these  photographs  ;  it  lay  too  flat  on  the  ground. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  look  to  see  whether  there  were 
any  marks  on  the  sleepers?     A.    I  did. 

Q.    What  did  you  find  on  the  sleepers?     A.    No  marks  at  all. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Lock  at  that  photograph,  and  turn  it  to 
the  light,  and  see  if  you  can  trace  anything  there?  A.  It  would 
take  a  man  with  a  million-power  microscope  to  see  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  make  any  examination  of  any 
other  portion  of  the  wreck?     A.    I  did. 

Q.  "What  did  you  find  ?  A.  I  found  some  very  bad  welding  on 
some  links. 

Q.  "Where  were  they?  A.  Lying  down  in  the  road;  I  couldn't 
specify  exactly  where  they  were. 

Q.    You  mean  this  sort  of  a  link,  a  hanger?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     Is  that   one   of    them?      A.    Suppose 


178  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

take  up  that  tiling  whore  I  left  it.  about  the  rod  and  the  hanger.  I 
immediately  drt-w  this  inference  from  that:  that  a  brake  hanger 
broke,  dropped  off,  and  let  the  brake  beam  down,  was  caught  by  the 
st'aps  and  held  there  until  it  came  to  the  bridge.  When  it  got  to  the 
bridge  it  caught  on  the  brake  rod,  and  the  momentum  of  the  car 
took  the  other  end  along  and  bent  it  up  in  the  shape  in  which  I  found 
it;  that  the  brake  beam  got  under  the  wheels,  derailed  the  cars,  gave 
an  unusual  shock  to  the  bridge,  and  threw  it  down. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  further  light  on  the  question  out  there?  Did 
you  make  any  other  investigations?  A.  That  was  all  the  light  I 
could  get  as  to  my  theory. 

Q.    Tliere  were  no  marks  on  the  sleepers?     A.    I  didn't  see  any. 

Q.  And  you  examined  them  carefully,  did  you?  A.  I  did,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  getting  at  the  cause  of  the  trouble. 

Q.  But  the  trucks  and  the  brake  rod  were  both  on  the  Dedham 
side  of  the  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  find  the  brake  beam  anywhere?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  have  been  in  the  habit  of  riding  over 
that  bridge  for  the  last  four  or  five  years?  A.  I  have  ridden  over 
it  fur  nearly  four  years  past. 

Q.    You  have  had  some  ideas  about  it?     A.    I  have  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Won't  you  tell  us  in  your  own  way  what  you  have  clone  in  the 
way  of  reporting  it?  A.  I  first  saw  the  bridge  four  years  ago  next 
May.  I  was  driving  out  under  it.  I  saw  the  bridge  had  been 
changed  since  I  had  been  there  previously,  and  I  stopped  to  look  at 
it  and  then  drove  on  ;  and  from  what  I  saw  of  the  bridge  I  imme- 
diately condemned  it,  for  several  reasons:  one  was  that  the  trusses 
were  wholly  unlike,  one  on  one  side  and  the  other  on  the  other,  and 
trusses  of  different  construction  don't  take  strains  equally.  One  will 
yield  on  one  side  and  then  the  other  will  yield.  That  gives  a  rock- 
ing motion  to  the  engine.  I  also  condemned  it  on  account  of  the 
great  angle  of  the  bridge  being  on  such  a  skew.  I  would  condemn 
any  truss  bridge  on  an}'  such  skew  as  that.  I  don't  believe  a  truss 
was  ever  made  that  would  stand  in  such  a  place.  I  condemned  it 
also  on  account  of  the  fact  that  it  took  its  bearing  upon  the  lower 
chord  instead  of  taking  it  upon  the  upper,  virtually  putting  the 
bridge  up  on  stilts,  as  a  bridge  weakens  from  its  lateral  and  not  from 
its  vertical  strain.  I  considered  the  bridge  strong  enough  for  any 
ordinary  wear  and  tear,  so  long  as  everything  went  smoothlv.  But 
the  first  time  that  there  was  any  trouble  on  top  of  the  bridge,  I  made 
up  my  mind  that  it  would  go  down.  I  have  so  considered  it  ever 
since  then.  I  have  seen  no  reason  to  change  my  opinion.  If  the 
track  was  in  perfect  adjustment,  everything  might  go  perfectty 
straight. 


APPENDIX.  179 

Q.  How  was  the  track  towards  Dedham  ?  A.  The  track  was  in 
fair  condition  until  last  summer,  along  about  August  I  should  think, 
when  I  found  that  in  coming  around  the  curve  we  received,  as  I 
thought,  too  much  of  a  shock.  I  reported  it  to  the  station  agent  at 
Highlands,  whose  name  is  Ed  Keith,  I  think,  and  told  him  that  he 
had  belter  report  that  track  in  town  and  have  them  look  after  it ;  it 
seemed  to  me  out  of  adjustment.  He  said  it  wouldn't  do  him  any 
good  and  he  didn't  care.  I  told  him  he  need  not  trouble  himself 
about  it,  I  would  attend  to  it.  A  few  days  after  I  saw  the  trackmen 
there  and  asked  them  if  they  wouldn't  ask  their  boss  to  look  at  that 
track  down  by  the  bridge  ;  it  seemed  to  nn  that  it  wanted  some  ad- 
justment. I  waited  two  or  three  weeks  and  fjund  that  no  change  had 
been  made,  and  then  I  reported  it  to  Mr.  Wheeler,  the  depot  master 
in  Boston.  I  told  him  if  he  didn't  fix  that  track  over  that  bridge  they 
wou'.d  have  trouble.  Said  he,  "  AVhat  is  the  matter?"  I  said,  'k  The 
outer  rail  on  the  curve  is  too  low  ;  it  wants  raising."  He  said,  "  It 
had  better  be  attended  to."  I  don't  think  it  ever  was  attended  to.  It 
didn't  seem  to  me  to  grow  any  better  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  growing 
worse.  Two  days  before  the  accident,  being  a  week  ago  Saturday,  I 
came  in  on  the  8.45  train  from  Highland  station,  and  the  shock  was 
so  great  on  those  curves  that  it  nearly  took  me  off  my  feet ;  I  was 
standing  up  at  the  time,  and  I  told  the  baggage  master  that  he 
wouldn't  ride  over  that  bridge  but  a  few  times  more  if  he  didn't  have 
that  track  fixed. 

Q.  Did  you  in  any  way  try  to  guard  yourself  against  any  accident 
that  might  occur  at  that  place?  A.  Well,  I  made  it  a  point  to  get 
into  the  baggage  car  to  come  into  town,  because  I  considered  if  the 
bridge  went  clown  it  would  go  down  when  the  cars  were  running  in- 
ward ;  but  going  out  I  felt  safer  and  rode  in  a  passenger  car. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  grade  was  there  ?  A.  I  don't  know, 
but  I  should  say  it  was  over  sixty  feet. 

Q.  Is  this  curve  that  you  are  speaking  of  the  same  that  Mr.  Den- 
nett spoke  about  on  Saturday,  when  he  gave  his  evidence?  A.  I 
think  not;  I  think  that  curve  was  at  Forest  Hills. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  from  actual  observation? 
A.    Yes,  sir ;  and  from  riding  over  it. 

Q.  Well,  what  of  it?  A.  I  think  it  is  a  very  dangerous  place.  I 
think  there  are  all  the  elements  there  for  a  disaster  quite  as  bad  as 
this  one.  The  six  o'clock  train  out  of  Boston  that  goes  up  over  the 
Dedham  branch  goes  through  Jamaica  Plain  at  sixty  miles  an  hour. 
It  doesn't  slow  down  very  much  between  there  and  this  curve  at  Forest 
Hills  ;  it  goes  around  there  at  such  a  rate  of  speed  that  it  will  almost 
knock  a  man  down  if  he  is  standing  up.  About  two-thirds  of  the  dis- 
tance on  that  curve  there  is  a  depression  in  the  outer  rail  on  the  curve 


180  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

and  if  a  piece  of  the  flange  breaks  off  there  the  train  will  pile  up  in 
Stony  Brook. 

Q.  What  causes  you  to  think  that  that  train  goes  at  the  rate  of 
sixty  miles  an  hour?  A.  It  has  been  timed  at  a  mile  in  fifty-seven 
seconds. 

Q.    Have  you  timed  it  yourself?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anybody  who  has?  A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Dennett 
has.  I  should  judge  from  rny  custom  in  riding  over  the  road  that  it 
did  go  fully  as  fast  as  fifty-five  or  sixty  miles. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Sixty  miles  an  hour  is  pretty  fast. 

The  Witness.  I  know  it  is.  I  shouldn't  want  to  stand  on  the 
platform  of  the  depot  when  it  is  going  by. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  say  that  the  train  that  leaves  Boston 
at  six  o'clock  runs  sixty  miles  an  hour?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  does  it  go  at  that  rate?  A.  Well,  it  will  begin  per- 
haps down  at  Boylston,  it  is  at  its  maximum  speed  when  it  passes 
Jamaica  Plain  station,  it  may  slow  down  a  little  by  the  time  it  gets  up 
to  Forest  Hills  station. 

Q.  It  gets  to  Dedham  from  Boston  in  twenty-five  or  thirty  minutes, 
don't  it?     A.    I  don't  know  ;  I  never  rode  up  on  it  to  Dedham. 

Q.   You  never  have  timed  it  yourself?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  got  that  statement  from  other  people?  A.  I  gave 
the  authority,  —  Mr.  Dennett. 

Q.  If  it  goes  the  whole  distance  from  Boston  to  Dedham,  ten  miles, 
in  twenty-five  minutes,  it  would  have  to  go  pretty  slow  somewhere, 
would  it  not,  if  it  runs  pait  of  the  distance  at  the  rate  of  sixty  miles 
an  hour?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  it  might  stop  half  an  hour  ;  I  don't  know. 

Q.  There  would  have  to  be  something  of  that  kind,  wouldn't  there? 
A.  Very  likely ;  I  know  it  reaches  Highland  station  about  sixteen 
minutes  from  Boston  ;  that  is  all  I  know  about  it. 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Keith,  whom  jrou  requested  to  report  about  this 
track?     A.    I  understand  he  is  station  agent  at  Highland  station. 

Q.    How  long  ago  was  that?     A.    Last  summer. 

Q.  You  have  noticed  the  same  defect  in  the  track  ever  since,  have 
you  ?     A.    It  has  continued  ever  since. 

Q.  That  defect,  as  I  understand  it,  was  the  insufficient  elevation 
of  the  outer  rail  on  the  curve?     A.    That  is  what  I  took  it  to  be. 

Q.    You  judged  from  its  effects?     A.    By  the  oscillation  of  the  car. 

Q.  The  car  tends  to  fall  otf  more  than  it  ought  to  in  going  around 
the  curve?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  a  matter  of  judgment,  I  suppose,  iu  the  trackmen,  is  it 
nut?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   Different  trackmen  would  have  different  judgment  as  to  the 


APPENDIX.  181 

amount  of  elevation  the}'  should  give,  or  when  they  have  given  the 
proper  amount?     A.    Yes,  sir;   it  is  a  thing  very  easily  determined. 

Q.  As  an  engineering  question?  A.  As  a  track-laying  question. 
too.  If  a  trackman  finds  that  the  inner  rail  is  worn  on  the  inner 
side,  and  the  outer  rail  is  not  worn,  his  outer  rail  is  too  high. 

Q.  Then  a  track  layer  should  be  on  the  watch  to  see  that  the  sides 
of  his  rails  are  about  equally  worn?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  will  determine  the  proper  elevation?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
it  should,  however,  be  adjusted  to  the  highest  speed. 

Q.  It  should  be  adjusted  to  the  highest  speed?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
always.  The  lower  speeds  will  take  care  of  themselves.  We  know 
that  a  train  will  not  go  otf  of  the  track  on  the  inside  of  a  curve. 

Q.  Nor  topple  over  from  its  being  too  high  on  the  outside?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  this  truck  that  you  found  on  the  east  side? 
A.    I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  that  would  lead  you  to  judge  whether  or 
not  the  brake  rod  that  you  saw  belonged  to  that  truck  ?  A.  There 
was  nothing  to  connect  that  brake  rod  with  the  truck,  because  the 
truck  was  a  long  distance  from  it.  It  seemed  to  be  a  truck  entirely 
by  itself,  without  an}'  other  appendage. 

Q.  You  say  "  a  long  distance."  I  should  be  glad  if  you  would 
describe,  as  well  as  you  can,  just  where  the  truck  was,  and  just  where 
the  brake  rod  was?  A.  I  cannot  more  fully  than  I  have.  I  said  the 
truck  was  on  the  extreme  eastern  end  of  the  Dedham  abutment,  and 
the  brake  rod  lay  across  the  track. 

Q.  Yes  ;  that  I  got.  But  how  far  back  from  the  abutment  did  the 
brake  rod  lie  across  the  track?  A.  Right  exactly  on  the  abutment, 
the  points  of  it  almost  hanging  over  the  abutment. 

Q.  If  I  understand  your  idea,  it  is,  that  that  brake  rod  loosening,  let 
drop  some  portion  of  that  truck  —  I  don't  know  what  you  call  it  — 
which  caught  in  one  of  the  ties  when  it  got  on  the  bridge,  where  the 
ties  were  open,  and  that  led  to  a  derailment?     A.    No. 

Q.  Please  explain  it  again?  A.  A  brake  hanger,  which  was 
found,  as  I  understand,  about  three  hundred  feet  — 

Q.  "What  is  a  brake  hanger?  A.  It  is  a  sort  of  hinge  which  holds 
the  brake  beam  up.  There  are  two  appliances,  one  for  holding  it  up 
and  the  other  for  safety.  The  brake  hanger  holds  it  up.  If  that 
breaks  off  the  brake  beam  drops  down  and  is  held  by  straps.  Th:it 
drops  it  down  nearer  the  rail,  and  that  would  be  likely  to  be  held 
there  without  inflicting  any  injury  until  it  struck  something  that 
knocked  it  ofT.  If  that  was  hit  by  anything  it  would  drop  under  the 
wheel,  and  almost  instant  dei ailment  would  be  likely  to  ensue. 


182  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conjecture  as  to  what  could  have  hit  it  and 
knocked  it  down  ?     A.    Not  the  slightest. 

Q.  Won't  you  explain  again,  Mr.  Pomeroy,  how  the  brake  rod  is 
connected  with  that  series  of  events  that  you  have  described?  A. 
Well,  I  found  a  brake  rod  bent  like  a  horseshoe,  with  the  points 
towards  where  the  bridge  was,  the  arch  of  it  lying  up  on  the  track, 
just  about  half-way  across  the  track;  that  is,  the  track  was  about 
midway  between  the  points  of  the  horseshoe.  If  yon  bent  it  round 
in  this  shape  you  would  have  made  the  track  come  under  it. 

Q.  How  would  the  parting  of  the  brake  rod  let  this  hanger  drop, 
that  you  have  spoken  of?     A.    It  wouldn't. 

Q.  What  connection  would  that  have  with  the  brake  hanger?  A. 
That  is  simply  a  connecting  link  between  the  forward  brake  beam  and 
the  back  brake  beam  ;  when  the  brake  beam  dropped  and  let  this 
brake  rod  down  so  that  it  would  catch  in  the  ground,  one  point  would 
be  held  and  the  train  would  take  the  other  end  and  double  it ;  then 
it  would  be  broken  off,  and  allowed  to  fall.  It  is  a  small  rod,  prob- 
ably half  an  inch  in  diameter. 

Q.  In  your  judgment,  would  that  rod  have  been  curled  up  and 
dropped  pretty  nearly  where  it  started,  or  would  it  have  started  some 
distance  further  back  and  been  curled  up  and  dropped  in  advance  of 
where  it  was  curled  up?  A.  It  couldn't  have  hit  anything  until  it  hit 
the  bridge,  because  there  was  no  mark  of  any  collision.  There  was 
nothing  there  to  show  what  it  did  strike. 

Q.  What  do  you  suppose  it  did  strike?  A.  I  cannot  tell ;  my 
idea  is  that  it  struck  the  bridge. 

Q.  You  mean  by  that,  some  of  the  flooring  of  the  bridge  ;  one  of 
thn  ties?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  If  it  struck  the  ties  would  it  not  leave  its 
marks?     A.    Certainly  it  would. 

Q.  If  those  ties  could  be  found  they  would  undoubtedly  show  the 
marks.  A.  It  might  have  struck  point  inwards,  and  made  a  hole  no 
bigger  than  the  end  of  your  finger. 

Q.  But  if  that  brake  rod  fell  coming  towards  Boston,  and  dropped 
down  immediately,  or  caught  in  the  bridge  and  was  turned  into  the 
shape  of  a  horseshoe,  so  that  the  ends  were  pointed  towards  Dedham, 
would  it  not  leave  on  those  ties  some  kind  of  a  mark?  A.  You  have 
got  it  wrong  there,  I  think,  Mr.  Kinsley.  Coming  towards  Boston,  I 
supposed  that  the  forward  end  of  the  brake  rod  dropped  just  about  the 
time  it  reached  the  bridge  ;  then,  being  detached,  the  rear  of  the  train 
took  this  end,  doubled  it  up,  and  left  the  two  points  pointing  towards 
Boston. 

Q.  And  bunched  the  ties?  Is  that  your  idea?  A.  Yes, sir;  went 
into  some  tie  or  into  some  obstruction. 


APPENDIX.  183 

Q.  If  those  ties  can  be  found  you  would  expect  to  find  scars  upon 
them,  would  3011  not?  A.  I  think  likely  you  would  find  a  hole  in  one 
of  the  sides  that  would  mark  it. 

Q.  If  that  bridge  was  a  properly  constructed  bridge,  would  the 
breaking  of  the  brake  rod  or  brake  beam  have  thrown  that  train  off? 
A.  It  might  have  thrown  it  off;  it  might  not  have  thrown  the  bridge 
down  ;  and  had  there  been  guard  rails  there,  I  think  it  would  have 
saved  the  train. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  suppose  that  the  brake  rod  be- 
longed to  the  trucks  you  found  on  the  embankment?  A.  I  do  not; 
because  there  were  no  marks  between  those  trucks  and  the  brake  rod. 
If  this  brake  rod  had  been  connected  with  the  truck  it  might  have 
dragged  it  there  ;  there  were  no  marks  to  show  how  that  truck  came 
there.  There  was  not  even  the  impression  of  a  wheel  between  the 
rails  and  the  position  of  that  truck,  showing  pretty  conclusively  that 
the  car  turned  up  and  then  dumped  these  wheels  there. 

Q.  Now,  with  the  exception  of  this  matter  of  the  brake  hanger, 
which  was  found  three  hundred  feet  back,  according  to  your  supposi- 
tion, but  which  may  possibly  have  been  carried  there,  is  there  any- 
thing in  3  our  mind  to  show  conclusively  that  the  brake  rod  and  the 
trucks  may  not  have  belonged  to  the  rear  car  of  the  train,  and  been 
torn  off  when  that  car  was  turned  from  the  rails  over  sideways  and 
then  into  the  street?     A.   That  is  very  possible. 

Q.  And  your  theory  would  depend  largely  upon  what  is  found  upon 
the  cross  ties  of  the  bridge?  A.  Yes,  to  some  extent  on  that  and  to 
some  extent  — 

Q.  If  the  first  cross  ties  of  the  bridge  are  not  found  to  be  marred 
continuously,  your  theory  is  wrong?  A.  Then  my  theory  is  wrong. 
My  idea  was  that  that  brake  rod  was  on  the  fourth  car ;  that  that  was 
the  one  that  was  derailed. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Why  did  you  attach  it  to  the  fourth  car? 
A.    Because  that  was  the  first  car  that  was  down  in  the  road. 

Q.  It  might  have  been  placed  on  either  of  the  three  forward  ones 
as  well  as  on  the  fourth,  might  it  not?     A.   Possibly. 

Q.  I  mean,  it  would  be  perfectly  consistent  with  your  theory,  would 
it  not?  A.  No  ;  my  idea  was  that  the  fourth  car  was  the  one  that 
derailed  the  train. 

Q.  How  would  you  account  for  the  telescoping  of  the  third  car  into 
the  second  ?  A.  Because  they  were  crossing  that  bridge  at  a  pretty 
good  speed.  The  train  broke  apart,  and  when  that  pull  of  the  last 
six  cars  was  released,  the  third  car  came  up  in  that  way  and  tele- 
scoped the  others. 

Q.    That  was  after  the  derailment,  of  course?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   You  supposed  that  the  truck  which  you  saw  at  the  end  of  the 


1S4  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

abutment  without  any  marks  between  it  and  the  rail  was  probably  the 
truck  of  the  smoker,  which  was  rolled  sideways  over  the  abutment? 
A.   That  was  the  inference  that  I  drew. 

Q.  Can  you  conceive  of  any  way  in  which  the  brake  rod  of  that  car 
should  have  been  left  behind  where  you  found  this  brake  rod?  A. 
Yes  ;  but  it  would  have  been  left  straight,  in  all  probability. 

Q.  I  mean,  without  any  independent  accident  besides  the  rolling 
over  of  the  car,  could  the  brake  rod  have  been  left  bent  in  this  way? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  I  can't  imagine  how  it  could. 

Q.  It  couldn't  have  been  left  bent  unless  it  had  met  with  some  kind 
of  a  twist  before  it  got  there,  besides  the  rolling  over  of  the  car?  A. 
No  ;  from  the  fact  that  the  brake  rod  lay  up  towards  Boston  with  the 
truck  in  that  position,  the  car  couldn't  have  left  the  track  where  this 
brake  rod  was  left. 

Q.  That  brake  rod  itself,  if  it  had  been  where  you  saw  it,  would 
have  derailed  the  cars  as  soon  as  they  came  in  contact  with  it,  would 
it  not?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  That  truck  that  was  on  the  embankment 
might  have  been  either  the  forward  or  rear  truck  of  that  last  car, 
might  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  brake  rod  may  have  been  the  brake  rod  of  the  forward  truck 
of  that  car,  may  it  not?  A.  I  think  not,  from  the  position  of  this 
one  that  was  remaining. 

Q.  How  far  back  was  the  truck  on  the  abutment  from  the  brake  bar? 
A.  The  bridge  was  on  such  a  great  angle  that  the  brake  rod  was  a 
good  deal  nearer  Boston  than  the  truck  was. 

Q.  II ow  far,  should  you  say  ?  A.  At  right  angles  with  the  track, 
I  should  say  perhaps  twent}'  feet. 

Q.  Might  not  a  truck  be  drawn  from  a  car,  the  brake  beam  loosened 
and  the  brake  rod  finally  catch  in  the  track,  even  after  the  truck  had 
separated?     A.    Yes  ;  but  not  under  the  existing  circumstances. 

Q.  I  didn't  understand  how  you  accounted  for  the  telescoping  of 
the  front  cars  in  the  train,  on  the  theory  that  this  accident  happened 
by  a  brake  beam  on  the  fourth  car  getting  on  to  the  ties.  A.  Well, 
sir,  if  you  have  seen  three  or  four  boys  pull  at  two  ends  of  a  rope, 
when  one  gang  lets  go  the  others  sit  down.  The  effect  was  the  same 
on  this  train.  The  six  cars  were  holding  back  ;  they  let  go  and  the 
others  sat  down. 

Q.  I  want  to  understand  that.  Is  it  your  belief,  assuming  that  a 
train  of  nine  cars  parts  and  leaves  the  last  six  cars,  that  the  snap  of 
the  engine  on  the  train  of  three  cars  is  such  that  it  would  telescope 
those  cars?     A.    No,  sir;  I  didn't  say  so. 

Q.   Then  please  explain  it  again?     A.    I  said  it  was  likely  the  third 


APPENDIX.  185 

car  came  into  the  second,  and  the  second  into  the  first.  The  engine  is 
pulling. 

Q.  Well,  I  do  not  catch  it  yet.  I  wish  you  would  explain  it  more 
fully?  A.  The  six  rear  cars  were  coming  down  hill  on  a  falling 
bridge.  They  broke  their  coupling  and  released  their  pull-back,  and 
with  the  engine  pulling  forward,  it  starts  up  the  rear  car  against  the 
second  and  the  second  against  the  first  and  telescopes  them. 

Q.  The  strain  back  of  the  third  car  being  released,  the  third  car 
takes  such  a  jump  forward  that  it  telescopes  the  second  car? 
A.   Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  it  exactly. 

Q.    The  engine  all  the  time  pulling  ahead?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  And  the  hind  car  going  up  hill  off  of  the 
bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  ever  seen  an  accident  of  that 
sort  happen?     A.    I  have  seen  them  in  almost  all  possible  shapes. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  one  like  that  happen?  A.  1  don't  remem- 
ber particularly  that  individual  kind  of  an  accident. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  it  is  possible  it  should  happen?  A.  I  think 
it  is  very  possible  ;  it  certainly  is  not  improbable. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Did  the  fact  that  the  two  trusses  under 
the  strain,  deflected  one  nearly  four  times  as  much  as  the  other  show 
a  weakness  in  the  bridge?     A.    Decidedly. 

Q.  That  is,  under  the  test  that  was  given,  if  one  deflected  two- 
sixteenths  of  an  inch  and  the  other  eight-sixteenths  of  an  inch,  it 
would  show  a  weakness  of  the  bridge,  would  it  not?  A.  Certainly  it 
would. 

Q.    Did  you  examine  the  sleepers  of  the  bridge?     A.    I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  supposing  that  the  brake  rod  fell  at  the  bridge  as  you 
describe  it,  on  your  theoiy  would  the  people  in  the  fourth  car  have 
received  a  shock  at  that  time?     A.    I  should  think  they  would. 

Q.  Would  you  expect  them  to  report  a  shock  when  they  went  on 
to  .the  bridge  first?     A.    I  should  ;  yes. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  ask  }Tou  one  question  in  relation  to  the  Forest 
Hills  curve,  whether  the  outside  curve  could  be  elevated  enough  to 
meet  the  requirements  that  you  think  it  should  have,  and  still  allow 
trains  on  the  main  track  to  pass?  A.  Yes;  at  the  point  on  which  the 
load  acts  it  is  two-thirds  of  the  way  around  the  curve,  almost  at  the 
end  towards  Dedham.  That  curve  could  be  reduced  and  made  lighter 
than  it  is  now,  easily  ;  it  is  too  sharp  to  go  around  there  at  the  speed 
with  which  they  go.  I  think  it  is  about  a  three-degree  curve  ;  I  don't 
know  ;  it  could  easily  be  changed  to  two. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Is  it  the  same  curvature  on  both  sides  of 
the  bridge?    A.   I  am  not  speaking  of  that  curve  now  ;    I  am  speak- 


186  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

ing  of  the  curve  at  Fore9t  Hills.  I  think  the  curve  at  the  bridge  is 
not  so  sharp  as  three  degrees. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  was  surprised  at  your  speaking  of  that  as  a  three- 
degree  curve. 

The  Witness.     Oh,  no  ;  that  is  not  so  sharp  as  that. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Am  I  correct  in  understanding  you  to  say 
that  there  was  a  brake  hanger  found  three  hundred  feet  from  the  bridge 
towards  Dedham  ?  A.  So  I  was  told  by  one  of  the  employees  of  the 
road. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     I  suppose  that  employee  can  be  found? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  will  make  every  effort  to  find  him  ;  I  have  not 
heard  of  him  before.  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  Mr.  Pomeroy  for 
coming  here. 

Adjourned  to  Tuesda}',  at  10.30. 


SEVENTH    DAY. 

Tuesday,  March  22,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  10.30  a.m. 

George  Richards  —  recalled. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  were  the  rails  on  this  side  of  the 
bridge  ?  Were  there  any  torn  off  except  about  ten  or  fifteen  or  twenty 
feet  from  the  bridge?  A.  There  was  one  rail  on  the  north  abutment 
which  belonged  on  the  east  side,  and  it  was  carried  about  sixty  feet 
beyond  its  position.  The  rail  lapped  on  the  abutment  several  feet, 
and  the  north  end  of  it  was  carried  about  sixty  feet  forward  beyond 
its  original  positiou,  towards  Boston. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  It  lapped  on  to  the  abutment  how 
much  ?  A.  I  don't  know  how  much  ;  I  should  think  as  much  as  ten  feet. 
The  bridge  was  covered  with  four  sixty-foot  rails.  The  joints  were 
about  the  middle  of  the  bridge,  and  of  course  they  would  have  gone 
on  to  the  abutments  equally  but  for  the  skew  of  the  bridge.  I  didn't 
measure  the  distance  there ;  I  should  think  it  was  as  much  as  eight 
or  ten  feet  from  the  face  of  the  abutment  to  where  this  joint  was.  I 
recognized  this  rail  from  the  fact  that  there  was  a  piece  torn  out  of 
the  base  of  the  rail,  and  the  piece  left  in  the  chair  which  held  the  rail 
exactly  matches  the  part  that  is  gone.  The  general  bending  was 
vertical.  There  were  two  long  bends  in  it.  From  the  rear  end  of 
that  rail  there  is  a  part  gone  ;  the  rail  was  broken,  but  I  don't  know 


APPENDIX.  187 

how  much  was  broken  off.  In  fact,  when  I  discovered  this,  the  roof 
of  a  car  had  been  turned  over  on  to  it,  and  I  couldn't  get  at  it ;  but  I 
know  it  is  broken,  and  isn't  sixty  feet  long. 

Q.  (B}-  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  had  that  rail  measured,  what 
there  is  left  of  it?  A.  No;  but  it  lies  there  where  it  can  be.  I 
tried  to  measure  it,  but  I  couldn't  find  the  end  of  it ;  it  was  covered 
up  by  the  material. 

Q.  The  rail  shown  in  photograph  No.  4  is  probably  the  rail  on  the 
west  side  of  the  track  and  at  the  north  end  of  the  bridge?  A.  I 
think  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Q.  And  the  one  which  the  witness,  Mr.  Williams,  referred  to  as 
being  between  the  first  and  second  cars  was  the  corresponding  rail 
on  the  east  side  of  the  bridge  at  the  north  end?  A.  Yes,  that  is 
right. 

Q.  And  that  rail,  3-ou  sa}-,  was  bent,  and  a  portion  of  it  was 
broken  off,  and  you  recognized  it  b}'  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  end 
where  it  was  fastened  was  broken  off  and  left  in  the  chair?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  It  has  since  been  taken  out,  and  I  think  it  has  been  preserved. 
The  other  end  of  the  rail  went  into  the  pit  below,  and  I  think  it  has 
been  preserved.  I  said  this  rail  was  broken.  To  determine  that,  I 
should  have  to  look  at  the  end  that  is  covered  with  the  roof  of  the 
car ;  but  I  was  told  b}T  one  of  the  employees  they  had  a  piece  of  that 
rail,  and  it  was  broken.  The  roof  was  turned  over  on  it  before  I 
went  to  look  at  the  end  of  it ;  but  from  the  position  in  which  the 
rail  lies  I  feel  quite  sure  of  it,  from  the  fact  that  there  were  sixty  feet 
in  each  one  of  these  rails. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  How  were  these  rails  fastened  down, — 
with  what  kind  of  chairs?  A.  The  ends  with  Fisher  &  Norris  joints  ; 
the  middle  with  spikes. 

Q.  What  is  the  length  of  these  Fisher  &  Norris  joints?  Arc  the}- 
the  old  style  or  the  new  style?  A.  I  don't  know  how  long  they  are  ; 
the  fastening  is  a  single  U  bolt. 

Q.  Is  it  the  old-fashioned  Fisher  &  Norris  joint,  or  is  it  the  new 
one  which  they  have  lately  got  out,  —  an  improvement  on  the  old  one? 
A.    I  don't  know  the  improvement  that  you  allude  to. 

Q  When  were  these  Fisher  &  Norris  joints  made,  —  how  long  had 
they  been  there?     A.    I  don't  know. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Williams.)     How  far  from  the  end  of  the  rail  was 
that  broken  piece  which  was  still  fastened  into  the  chair?     A.   That 
broken  piece  is  a  ver}r  small  piece  left  in  the  chair. 
Q.    How  far  was  that  from  the  north  end  of  the  rail? 
The  Chairman.     The  north  end   of    the    rail    was    put  into   that 
chair. 

Q.   It  was  the  extreme  end  of  the  rail?    A.   Yes,  sir  ;  and  the  part 


188  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

of  the  rail  that  corresponded  to  that  end  of  the  rail  was  carried  sixty 
feet  beyond  its  original  seat. 

Q.  It  was  the  bottom  flange  which  was  left  in  the  chair?  A.  The 
bottom  flange,  what  we  call  the  base. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pdtnam.)  You  spoke  of  this  rail  being  bent  verti- 
cally ;  was  the  convexity  of  the  bend  on  the  upper  or  under  side  of 
the  rail?  A.  "Well,  it  was  bent  in  both  directions,  what  I  call  up- 
wards and  downwards.  This  rail  had  probably  received  a  very  severe 
shock.  On  the  second  car,  the  forward  axle,  which  was  a  new  axle 
put  in  in  December  (the  axle  was  four  inches  and  a  half  in  diameter), 
there  is  a  print  which  can  be  made  by  no  piece  that  I  can  find  around 
there  except  that  steel  rail.  This  rail  was  probably  broken  and 
struck  against  that  axle  ;  that  drove  that  truck  from  its  position,  tear- 
ing off  all  the  fastenings,  threw  it  to  the  left,  and  was  the  seat  of  all 
that  immense  shock.  The  rail  shows  its  form  on  the  axle.  It  was 
struck  in  such  a  position  as  to  throw  the  truck  and  place  it  exactly 
where  it  was,  throwing  it  around  to  the  right,  chocking  against  the 
other  truck  and  causing  the  telescoping.  There  is  no  material  to  be 
found  there,  nor  has  there  been  any,  which  could  have  made  the  mark 
on  that  axle  except  that  rail. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  the  nature  of  the  mark,  —  how 
deep  a  mark?  A.  Well,  it  is  not  eas}T  to  describe.  It  is  as  though 
the  steel  rail  had  been  used  as  a  gouge,  as  the  wheel  was  still  turning 
around,  plowing  out,  as  it  were,  a  part  of  the  metal.  There  are  sev- 
eral gentlemen  here  who  have  seen  the  axle.  This  was  the  forward 
axle  of  the  second  car. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  I  suppose,  Mr.  Richards,  that  after  the 
end  of  that  rail  had  gouged  that  axle,  it  passed  over  the  axle  and  was 
stripped  up,  or  did  it  gouge  the  under  side  of  the  axle?  A.  It  proba- 
bly went  under,  from  the  position  of  the  mark,  and  the  truck  must 
have  stopped  instantly  for  a  while  and  been  pushed  back  and  pushed 
on  the  right-hand  side.  This  mark  is  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the 
forward  axle,  near  the  wheel  seat.  It  carried  it'  as  far  as  that ;  the 
rail  was  then  taken  up  by  some  means  and  carried  on  to  the  bank. 
The  train  being  nine  cars  was  about  five  hundred  feet  long,  and  this 
shock  must  have  taken  place  when  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  train 
had  not  reached  the  bridge.  The  weight  of  these  cars,  with  their 
momentum,  —  the  cars  weigh  probably  about  eighteen  tons  each,  one 
hundred  and  sixty  odd  tons, —  coming  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  brought  up 
against  the  end  of  that  rail ;  that  is,  not  to  speak  of  another  thing,  — 
the  curve  at  the  bridge. 

Q.  At  that  time  the  engine  also  was  on  the  train?  A.  The  engine 
probably  broke  apart  from  the  shock,  I  should  think  ;  of  course  it  is 
uncertain.     The  train  was  parted  first  from  the  tender,  then  between 


APPENDIX.  189 

the  first  and  second  cars,  then  between  the  third  and  fourth.  The 
fourth  car  came  up  on  the  bank  and  left  the  roof;  the  roof  lies  there, 
while  the  bod}-  of  the  car  is  down  here  without  its  roof  (referring  to 
photograph)  ;  the  roof  of  87  is  on  the  bank.  The  question  was 
raised  as  to  the  distance  from  the  bridge  to  the  commencement  of  the 
curve.  There  was  a  straight  line  above  the  bridge  of  fifty-five  feet  by 
actual  measurement,  that  is,  south,  on  the  Dedham  side.  North  of  the 
bridge  the  straight  line  measures  forty-two  feet.  Of  course  it  is  only 
the  south  curve  which  could  be  considered  in  this  particular  case. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  the  nature  of  the  curve  on  the 
south  side  of  the  bridge,  —  how  many  degrees?  A.  I  don't  know  ; 
I  never  paid  much  attention  to  it,  only  the  length  of  the  curve. 

Mr.  Potnam.     It  is  understood  to  be  a  one-degree  curve. 

Q.  What  was  the  length  of  these  various  cars  in  the  train?  Were 
they  all  of  the  same  length?  A.  Well,  about  the  same  length.  The 
bodies  were  about  fifty  feet ;  the  cars  measure  over  the  platforms 
about  fifty-five  or  fifty-five  and  a  half  feet. 

Q.  How  far  is  it  from  where  the  rear  end  of  the  truck  rests  upon 
the  track  to  the  rear  end  of  the  Miller  platform  of  a  car?  A.  They 
vary  somewhat,  but  the  back  end,  or  the  outside  end,  as  we  call  it,  of 
the  truck  is  about  even  with  the  body  of  the  car  ;  although  in  some 
special  cars  it  is  carried  out  further,  and  in  some  cars  under  further, 
according  to  the  length  of  the  truck.  We  make  cars  that  have  a 
truck  seven  feet  long,  and  some  five  and  a  half,  but  the  relative  posi- 
tion is  about  the  same. 

Q.   These  trucks  had  two  wheels  on  each  side?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  is  it  from  the  bearing  point  of  the  front  wheel  of  the 
truck  to  the  front  end  of  the  Miller  platform?  I  wish  you  would 
make  a  measurement  and  let  me  know.  A.  There  is  a  variation  of 
two  feet  on  some  of  the  cars. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     You  can  tell  exactly  on  these  cars? 

Mr.  Richards.     I  can  tell  exactly  on  any  special  car. 

The  Chairman.     I  should  like  to  know  about  these  three  cars. 

Mr.  Richards.  They  are  so  smashed  up  I  couldn't  make  the 
measurements. 

The  Chairman.     You  can  tell  about  the  first  two,  can't  you? 

Mr.  Richards.  I  can  tell  about  18,  I  can  tell  about  52,  and  prob- 
ably 82. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Have  you  made  an  actual  measurement 
of  the  distance  from  the  end  of  the  track  on  the  north  side  of  the 
abutment  to  the  edge  of  the  abutment?  A.  I  don't  understand  ex- 
actly what  you  mean. 

Q.   You  have  said  that  the  rail  projects  over  the  edge  of  the  abut- 


190  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

ment ;  that  is,  runs  from  the  middle  of  the  bridge  and  then  over  on 
to  the  abutment?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  have  you  measured  the  distance  from  the  abutment  end  of 
the  rail  to  the  edge  of  the  abutment?     A.    No  ;  I  have  not. 

Q.  That  can  be  easily  ascertained,  can  it  not?  A.  That  can  be 
easily  ascertained,  because  the  end  of  the  rail,  which  is  undisturbed 
by  the  wreck,  is  still  there,  and  the  trains  are  running  over  it ;  we 
have  only  to  measure  from  where  the  bridge  rail  begins. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  make  that  measurement  at  your 
earliest  opportunity  ?     A.    I  will. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Can  you  say  with  certainty  which  of  the 
cars,  87  or  54,  had  the  cane  seats?  A.  Fifry-four  had  the  cane 
seats. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Where  was  the  forward  truck  of  the 
second  car  found  lying?  A.  It  was  jammed  back  against  the  other 
truck  out  to  the  right,  facing  Boston,  nearly  its  whole  width,  perhaps 
under  it  twelve  or  sixteen  inches. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  from  the  edge  of  the  abutment?  A.  About 
100  feet.  From  the  rear  end  of  the  forward  car,  which  was  No.  52, 
to  the  abutment,  it  was  166  feet.  Car  No.  2  stood  back  about  five  feet 
towards  the  abutment,  and  was  about  fifty  feet  long,  so  it  would  be 
from  100  to  110  feet.  I  made  the  measurements  from  the  rear  end  of 
the  forward  car  to  the  face  of  the  abutment,  which  was  about  156 
feet. 

Q.  Now,  was  the  second  truck  on  the  second  car,  the  rear  truck  on 
the  second  car,  displaced?  A.  It  was  near  its  place;  driven  back 
some,  driven  back  perhaps  five  or  six  fret. 

Q.  But  it  held  its  relative  position?  A.  Nearty  so  ;  a  little  out  of 
place  sideways,  and  a  few  feet  back  of  its  place. 

Q.  The  forward  truck  was  against  it?  A.  Against  it  and  to  one 
side  of  it,  locked  into  it. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  truck  which  you  sajT  has  the  marks?  A. 
That  is  the  truck  which  bears  the  marks.  A  gentleman  here  has  the 
record  of  that  pair  of  wheels  and  when  it  was  put  under,  and  that  is 
the  way  I  locate  it  as  being  the  forward  wheels,  taking  the  original 
record  of  when  it  was  put  under. 

Q.  You  have  the  record  of  car  54,  have  you  not?  You  showed  it 
to  me  as  the  cane-seat  car.     A.   Oh,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  certain,  is  it?  A.  Oh,  yes ;  there  is  no  doubt  about 
it ;  it  is  taken  from  the  books. 

Q.  And  you  have  no  question  but  that  was  the  fifth  car?  A.  I 
have  no  doubt  at  all  about  the  cane  seats,  but  as  to  its  position  on  the 
train  I  have  to  rely  on  the  reports  of  the  train  hands,  and  on  what  I 


APPENDIX.  191 

sec  of  the  wreck.  It  seems  to  me  certain  it  was  the  fifth  car  in  the 
train. 

Q.  You  are  able  to  identify  the  top  of  87  as  on  the  embankment? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  it  is  still  there. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Richards,  where  the 
trucks  of  87  were  found?  A.  Not  the  exact  spot;  they  were  taken 
up  from  below. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  them  on  the  ground?  A.  Well,  I  saw  all  there 
was  there,  but  not  to  identify  them. 

Q.  Not  to  fix  in  your  mind  the  place  where  those  trucks  were  found  ? 
A.    No. 

Q.  Did  you  see  those  broken  hangers  on  the  dajr  of  the  accident? 
A.    The  bridge  hangers? 

Q.    Yes,  sir.     A.    I  did. 

Q.  These  broken  pieces  that  are  here,  you  saw  them  on  the  spot? 
A.  I  saw  parts  of  them  ;  I  saw  the  castings  which  had  the  pieces  in  them. 

Q.  The  castings  which  had  the  small  pieces,  or  the  castings  which 
had  the  large,  the  upper,  ends  of  the  hangers?  A.  The  short  pieces. 
They  were  mostly  within  the  castings,  and  they  must  have  been  the 
short  pieces. 

Q.  Was  the  casting  which  they  were  within  the  angle  block  between 
the  horizontal  and  the  inclined  member  of  the  truss,  or  was  it  the  end 
block  of  a  floor  timber  ?  A.  These  were  right  there  with  the  end  block  ; 
the  hangers  were  in  the  end  block. 

Q.  Of  a  floor  timber?  A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  casting  where  they 
belonged.  The}'  hadn't  been  separated.  They  had  commenced  taking 
off"  the  nuts  to  take  out  the  pins,  but  there  is  no  question  that  I  saw 
them  in  the  casting  as  they  were. 

Q.  They  were  upon  a  couple  of  I  beams,  weren't  they  ?  A.  No  ; 
the  men  were  at  work  then  separating  them.  The  other  parts  had  been 
taken  away,  and  they  were  simply  on  the  pin  which  was  in  the  casting. 

Q.  You  are  sure  they  were  within  the  casting?  A.  They  were  in 
the  casting  at  the  time.  I  tried  to  see  the  ends  and  I  could  not.  I 
recollect  the  position  in  which  the}'  laid. 

Q.  Then  it  must  have  been  the  angle  block  between  the  two  members 
of  the  truss.  There  was  no  casting  on  the  end  of  the  floor  beams, 
was  there?  A.  Whatever  it  was,  —  I  didn't  notice  the  form  of  the 
hangers,  but  was  looking  for  broken  parts  and  tried  to  see  them,  but 
could  not. 

Q.  Was  this  a  large  casting  that  they  were  in  ?  A.  A  large  casting  ; 
yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  it?  A.  It  laid,  I  should  say,  about  six  feet  from 
the  north  abutment  and  not  far  from  midway  of  the  width  of  the 
bridge.     I  didn't  pay  much  attention  to  it. 


192  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  mass  of  ruined  cars  was  it,  — on  the  east 
side  or  west  side?  A.  On  the  east  side,  between  the  wrecked  cars 
and  the  face  of  the  abutment,  but  it  was  laid  in  such  a  position  that 
it  might  have  been  moved  in  parting  the  members. 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  moved  after  the  wreck  had  fallen  without 
being  carried  over  the  mass  of  cars?     A.    Not  very  easily. 

Q.  It  must  have  originally  fallen,  then,  on  the  east  side  of  that 
mass  of  ruined  cars,  must  it  not?  A.  I  should  say  it  would  have 
been  a  difficult  job  to  have  got  it  over  there  ;  it  would  have  required 
several  men  to  do  it ;  the  cars  made  a  full  line. 

(.,).  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  it  was  carried  there  ;  there  was 
no  purpose  in  candying  it  there?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  suppose  there 
was. 

Q.  What  time  was  it,  on  the  day  of  the  accident,  that  you  saw 
this?     A.   This  was  the  next  day  afterwards,  I  think. 

Q.  It  was  not  the  day  of  the  accident?  A.  Not  the  day  of  the 
accident. 

Q.    It  was  the  next  clay,  Tuesday  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  mass  of  broken  cars  was  still  there  blocking  the  road? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  it  could  not  have  got  over  to  the  other  side  of  that 
mass  without  being  carried  over  with  great  difficulty?  A.  No;  I 
don't  see  how  it  was  possible. 

The  Chairman.     It  was  on  the  east  side  on  the  first  day. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  other  ends  of  these  broken  hangers,  the  ends 
that  afterwards  went  to  New  York  and  have  since  come  back? 
A.  Well,  I  saw  them  the  day  of  the  accident,  but  I  paid  no  attention 
to  them.  I  saw  some  broken  hangers  lying  somewheres  ;  I  was  look- 
ing intently  for  other  things  then,  and  I  can  simply  say  I  am  quite 
sure  I  saw  them,  probably,  before  they  were  taken  away. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  where  the}-  were?  A.  No;  I  do 
not. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  do  you  consider  in  regard  to  that 
break?  (Exhibit  M.)  Is  it  all  a  new  break?  A.  This  is  nearly  all 
a  new  break  ;  there  is  a  slight  flaw  in  that ;  this  is  wholly  a  new 
break. 

Q.  How  about  the  welding?  A.  The  welding  here  was  imperfect. 
Of  course  that  is  supposed  to  have  been  welded  through  there,  but  it 
never  was.  There  is  no  doubt  it  was  closed  up  in  such  a  way  that 
you  could  not  see  it  if  it  was  not  welded. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  these  breaks?  (Exhibit  0.)  A.  That 
has  been  soiled  in  the  mud ;  I  shouldn't  want  to  pass  judgment  upon 
it.  That  I  should  say  was  a  new  break  soiled  by  the  weather  or  mud. 
There  is  no  wear  or  abrasion  of  the  parts  rubbing  together  as  there 


APPENDIX.  193 

would  be  if  it  were  an  old  break.  I  should  say  that  was  soiled  by  the 
weather  or  mud. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  a  new  break?  A.  I  should  think  that  was  a 
new  break  and  soiled  by  moisture  and  mud. 

Q.    Clear  across  that?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Js  that  all  a  new  break?  A.  There  is  one  corner  there,  a  sec- 
tion, that  looks  like  an  old  break. 

Q.    All  a  new  break  except  a  little  corner  here?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  was  that  welded?  A.  It  was  a  partial  weld  originally. 
It  was  perfect  there,  a  small  section  there  imperfect,  there  imperfect, 
aud  partially  welded  here. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  a  good  weld?  A.  No  ;  I  do  not.  And 
I  never  saw  a  weld  made  yet  anywhere  that  I  felt  sure  was  a  good 
weld  until  we  had  broken  it.  All  welds  are  subject  to  that  defect. 
They  may  be  good  on  the  outside,  but  there  is  no  certainty  of  the 
weld  on  the  inside.  It  is  hidden  from  the  outside,  and  the  better  the 
weld  there  is  on  the  outside  the  harder  it  is  to  detect  the  welding  in- 
side. Parting  it  shows  it  is  not  good  welding.  If  that  weld  had 
been  perfect  it  would  have  torn  apart  as  hard  at  the  weld  as  else- 
where.    If  it  had  been  perfect  it  would  never  have  parted  here. 

( ).  You  have  had  a  good  deal  of  experience  in  judging  of  broken 
iron,  have  you  not?     A.    I  have  had  some. 

Q.  And  you  express  it  as  your  conviction  that  these  are  not  old 
breaks  ?  (Referring  to  exhibit  O. )  A.I  express  my  opinion  that  it  is 
so  soiled  1  couldn't  say  ;  so  soiled  by  the  weather.  If  it  was  an  old 
weld  that  worked  a  good  deal  and  was  away  from  the  weather,  it 
would  show  some  polished  places,  abrasions.  When  it  is  bright  and 
clean  it  is  easy  to  say  what  it  is. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  by  any  method  known  to  you  of  treating  that 
piece  of  iron  whether  it  is  an  old  or  a  new  break?  A.  I  don't  know 
of  any  way  you  could. 

Q.  When  was  that  broken  hanger  first  called  to  your  attention? 
A.  I  saw  it  as  I  passed  by.  I  was  with  some  gentlemen  looking 
over  the  place  to  see  what  we  could  find,  and  we  came  to  this  and 
saw  something  missing  that  went  in  there. 

Q.  When  was  that;  which  day?  A.  It  was  the  day  after  the 
wreck,  or  the  day  following  ;  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  was  on  Tuesday. 

Q.  Had  your  attention  not  been  called  to  it  before  Tuesday?  A. 
No ;  I  had  had  no  time  to  attend  to  that. 

Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Folsom  or  Mr.  Yose  call  it  to  your  attention  before 
Tuesday?  A.  No,  unless  it  was  Mr.  Vose  ;  I  didn't  know  him  till 
yesterday,  and  if  he  called  my  attention  to  it,  it  might  have, 
been. 


10  t  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Who  had  charge  of  clearing  up  the  wreck?  A.  From  below 
the  bridge  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  A.  James  Folsom.  I  went  away  as  soon  as  I  could 
get  clear  and  hired  a  rigger  to  come  there  with  his  men,  and  all  the 
stuff  taken  from  below  was  lifted  up  by  the  rigger,  except  such  things 
as  castings. 

Q.  Who  gave  instructions  to  the  rigger  as  to  what  was  to  be  done? 
A.  Well,  all  the  instructions  he  had  I  gave  him.  He  came  there 
wiih  a  l«.t  of  men,  and  James  Fols  >m  — 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  get  your  instructions?  A.  From  the 
superintendent. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  instructions  that  those  broken  hangers  and 
other  portions  which  might  be  of  value  in  the  investigation  were  to  be 
preserved?  A.  At  some  time  that  day,  or  the  next  day,  I  couldn't 
say  which,  he  instructed  me  to  preserve  everything  that  came  into  my 
hands  that  could  be  of  value  ;  but  these  didn't  pass  into  my  hands 
at  all,  but  rather  through  the  rigger's  and  through  the  bridge  builder's 
(Mr.  James  Folsom's)  gang. 

Q.  You  employed  the  riggers  and  gave  them  their  instructions,  did 
you  not?  A.  I  gave  them  instructions  to  go  to  work  and  lift  up  this 
wreck,  and  turned  them  over  to  James  Folsom,  so  that  they  could 
work  in  concert,  as  it  was  their  job  to  take  care  of  it.  The  general 
instructions  were  to  get  the  stuff  up. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  James  Folsom  that  portions  of  the  wreck  that  were 
of  importance  in  the  investigation  were  to  be  preserved?  A.  He 
to  Id  me,  before  I  thought  of  the  thing  otherwise,  before  I  had  had 
time  to  think  of  it,  that  he  had  had  orders  to  save  all  that  might 
be  of  importance. 

Q.  When  was  it,  —  on  Monday  or  Tuesday  ?  A.  I  couldn't  say  ;  I 
think  it  was  Monday. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  The  riggers  were  to  hoist  the  things  up 
on  to  the  bank  ?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.   And  there  deliver  them  to  Mr.  James  Folsom?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.   Who  had  his  cars  and  his  wrecking  gang  up  there?     A.   Y^es, 
sir  ;  that  is  it. 

Q.  Was,  in  fact,  all  the  important  iron  work  of  the  bridge  taken 
down  to  your  shops  and  preserved  ?  A.  All  that  has  been  removed 
by  the  company  has  been  taken  down  to  the  shops.  There  have 
been  a  great  many  pieces  stolen  away. 

-Q.  That,  I  take  it,  is  not  very  heavy  iron  work,  excepting  these 
two  pieces  that  went  to  New  York?     A.    No  ;  only  small  scraps. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Should  you  consider  a  hanger  safe  which 
.has. a  split  in  the  weld,  on  the  line  of  the  weld?  A.  Well,  it  would 
depend  upon  the  position  of  the  hanger  and  what  it  had  to  do. 


APPENDIX.  195 

Q.  Well,  these  hangers?  A.  Some  kinds  of  hangers  are  left  open, 
any  way.     It  might  be  a  loop  hanger,  like  a  loop  coupling. 

Q.  Speaking  of  these  hangers  ;  if  you  saw  one  of  these  hangers  in 
that  bridge  with  a  split  in  the  weld,  you  would  take  measures  to  have 
a  new  one  put  on,  would  you  not?     A.    I  should. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  these  hangers  which  are  not  broken?  A. 
I  did  look  at  them  this  morning. 

Q.  That  has  a  split  in  the  weld,  has  it  not?  (Exhibit  P.)  A.  It  is 
an  imperfect  weld. 

Q.  You  would  regard  that  as  an  element  of  weakness  in  the  hanger? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  should  judge  it  would  depend  on  the  amount  of  work 
to  be  done. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  these  two  whole  hangers,  P  and  S,  were 
taken  from?     A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  F.samine  P  again.  In  the  lower  loop  of  that  hanger  is  a  long 
slit  in  the  weld,  is  there  not?  A.  Not  a  slit  in  the  weld,  but  a  failure 
to  weld. 

Q.  Should  you  say  that  was  a  failure  in  the  original  welding? 
A.    No  ;  I  should  not. 

Q.  It  opened  afterwards?  A.  Opened  afterwards.  There  was  a 
slight  welding  way  up  in  here  ;  you  see  a  bright  spot.  It  was  no 
doubt  intended  to  weld  down  to  here,  not  clear  up  here,  but  to  there. 
Q.  Now,  examine  that  crack,  Mr.  Richards,  on  the  side  of  the 
lower  loop  of  hanger  P,  and  say  whether  you  think  that  is  an  old  or 
a  new  crack?  A.  Not  very  old.  That  is  wet;  and  the  edges  are 
too  sharp,  the  points  are  too  keen,  to  be  very  old. 

Q.  AVhat  do  you  mean  by  ''very  old"?  A.  I  mean  a  difference 
between  a  day  and  a  year,  perhaps.  A  part  of  that  might  have  been 
done  by  the  shock.  The  edges  are  all  sharp,  as  near  as  I  can  see  in 
there. 

Q.  Can  you  form  any  judgment  when  that  crack  was  made?  A. 
I  shouldn't  want  to,  without  first  breaking  it  off  and  looking  at  it. 

Q.  Now,  below  the  upper  loop  of  that  hanger  there  is  another 
crack  ;  can  you  form  any  judgment  as  to  that?  A.  It  is  a  joint,  and 
the  weld  has  given  away. 

Q.   That  is  in  the  line  of  the  weld,  is  it?     A.    Yes  ;   it  is. 
Q.    Now,  examine  hanger  S.     On  the  line  of  the  weld  of  the  lower 
loop  there  is  a   long  crack,  is  there  not?     A.    An  opening  of  the 
joint,  not  a  crack. 

Q.  About  how  many  inches  from  the  end  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
loop?  A.  Several  inches,  some  three  and  a  half  to  four,  that  is 
open. 

Q.   From  the  end  of  the  loop?     A.   Yes,  sir. 


106  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Can  3011  say  whether  that  is  an  old  or  a  new  break?  A.  It 
looks  like  the  opening  of  an  imperfect  weld. 

Q.  Should  you  say  it  was  old  or  new ?  You  see  no  bright  edges 
tin  re,  do  you?     A.    No. 

Q.  That  would  indicate  it  was  an  old  break,  wouldn't  it?  A.  It 
indicates  au  old  break,  or  else  soiled  by  water  or  mud.  It  would  de- 
pend upon  where  it  has  been.  It  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  make  an 
old  break  out  of  a  new  one.  That  is  a  game  we  have  played  as  a 
common  tiling  around  the  shop,  by  soiling  with  acid,  or  soiling  with 
water;  and  what  we  have  to  rely  upon  is  the  abrasion  of  the  parts,  or 
wearing  of  the  parts  Here  it  is  impossible  to  look  in  to  see 
whether  there  is  any  such  indication  or  not. 

Q.  Now,  if  you  were  inspecting  the  bridge  and  found  that  break 
in  the  weld,  you  would  condemn  that  hanger,  would  you  not?  A.  I 
don't  think  I  should. 

Q.  You  think  that  hanger  is  sufficient?  A.  It  would  depend  upon 
the  strain  that  it  was  supposed  to  carry,  and  I  don't  know  anything 
abi  ut  it.  I  couldn't  say  whether  that  is  in  proper  proportion  to  the 
load,  with  a  large  margin,  or  not.  I  am  not  posted  in  the  bridge 
business.  If  that  was  made  to  lift  up  one  weight,  it  might  be  strong 
enough,  and  for  another  weight  it  would  not  be.  I  haven't  heard  any 
one  speak  yet  of  the  strain  that  was  supposed  to  carry  on  these  links  ; 
I  know  nothing  about  it.  If  I  wished  simply  to  lift  up  a  locomotive 
that  only  weighs  fifty  tons,  I  shouldn't  hesitate  to  take  that  to  lift  it 
with.  If  I  had  got  to  lift  up  three  or  four,  it  would  be  quite  a  differ- 
ent thing. 

Q.  Have  you  any  hesitation,  Mr.  Richards,  as  a  mechanic,  in  say- 
ing that  that  hanger  is  an  imperfect  hanger?  A.  It  depends  on  the 
load  to  be  carried. 

Q.  Would  you  deem  that  hanger  adequate  to  carry  the  load  it  had 
to  carry?  A.  I  should  say  it  is  not  as  strong  as  it  is  possible  to 
make  a  hanger. 

Q.  On  the  upper  part  of  that  hanger  there  is  a  split  down  from  the 
bottom  of  the  loop,  is  there  not,  of  two  or  three  inches?  A.  I  don't 
understand  what  you  are  driving  at. 

<4.  I  refer  to  that.  A.  The  further  down  this  opening  comes  the 
stronger  it  is,  ami  the  higher  up  that  is  welded  the  more  liable  it  will 
be  i"  split  apart.  You  see  the  idea  is  to  leave  it  open  like  a  Y.  If 
they  had  brought  it  up  here,  the  weaker  it  would  be  ;  the  further  down 
it  went,  —  the  longer  this  Y  is,  —  the  stronger  it  would  be,  if  it  finally 
ended  in  a  good  weld.  The  strength  is  not  in  the  welding  of  that ;  it 
is  in  the  perfection  of  the  cross  section  and  nowdiere  else,  and  it  has 
nothing  at  all  to  do  with  this  in  any  way,  shape  or  fashion.  True 
seience  would  bring  that  in  the  shape  a  line  would  take,  —  a  small 


APPENDIX.  197 

string  drawn  on  a  strain.  Yon  would  not  pull  a  string  out  of  line 
and  assume  it  would  bold  its  position,  neither  should  you  a  piece  of 
iron. 

Q.  Now,  be  kind  enough  to  return  to  my  question.  There  Ls  a 
crack,  is  there  not,  through  the  lower  part  of  that  loop  down  some 
two  or  three  inches?  A.  I  don't  see  any  evidence  of  it.  I  see  evi- 
dence of  a  not  welding  there,  but  it  is  not  necessary  it  should  weld. 

Q.    I  have  not  asked  3011  that,  Mr.  Richards,  as  to  the  nee 
of  it.     I  ask  you  if  there  is  not  a  crack  there  two  or  three  inches 
long?     A.    No;  there  is  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  call  that  a  crack?  A.  No.  A  crack  must  be  in 
metal  that  has  once  joined  together  and  afterwards  parted,  and  there 
is  no  more  crack  there  than  there  is  there,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word,  as  we  call  it.     Do  you  call  that  a  crack  ? 

Q.  I  am  not  under  examination,  Mr.  Richards.  Is  that  a  fissure, 
we  will  call  it,  if  you  like  that  any  better,  in  the  line  of  the  weld? 
A.  It  is  probably  where  the  parts  came  together  which  were  welded 
below,  but  there  was  no  welding  there. 

Q.  You  call  that  a  perfect  weld?  A.  I  don't  call  it  a  perfect 
weld  ;  a  perfect  weld  never  fails. 

Q.  Is  that  the  welding  line  there  where  that  fissure  is?  A.  That 
is  not  welded  there. 

Q.   It  is  not?     A.   No. 

Q.  Then  it  is  a  crack  in  the  iron,  isn't  it?  A.  Not  necessarily  ;  it 
can't  be  a  crack  if  it  was  never  united. 

Q.  Now,  look  on  the  other  side;  do  you  call  that  a  crack?  A. 
No  ;  I  do  not. 

Q.   About  the  same  length,  isn't  it?     A.    As  near  as  I  can  judge. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  that  fissure  is  in  the  line  of  the  weld?  A. 
It  is  in  the  line  where  there  are  two  parts  that  came  together. 

Q.    To  be  welded?     A.   To  be  welded,  and  were  welded  below. 

Q.  In  other  words,  it  has  opened  at  the  welding  point,  hasn't  it  ? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  have  been  trying  to  get  at.  A.  It  has  opened 
at  the  junction  of  the  parts. 

Q.  Now,  tell  us  how  long  that  opening  is?  A.  About  three 
inches. 

Q.   That  is  on  both  sides?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Aciiorn.)  You  say  that  you  think  the  end  of  that 
rail  coming  in  contact  with  the  axle  on  the  second  car  caused  the 
Shock  to  the  train?     A.    I  do. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  in  what  position  you  assumed  that  rail  to 
be  when  it  came  against  the  axle?  A.  It  passed  over  the  brake 
beam. 


198  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  It  is  the  long  rail  that  wo  are  speaking  of,  the  one  sixty  feet 
long?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    That  lapped  on  to  the  north  abutment?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  end  was  at  the  centre  of  the  bridge ;  that  is  the  rail 
you  are  speaking  of?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  centre  end  is  the  end  you  are  speaking  of  when  }tou 
say  it  brought  up  against  the  axle,  or  the  axle  brought  up  against  it, 
is  it  not?  A.  A  piece  of  the  rail  is  supposed  to  have  hit  there,  from 
the  shape  of  the  indentation,  and  the  position  of  the  parts  of  the 
wreck  bear  out  the  opinion. 

Q.  It  was  that  long  rail  that  you  think  caught  against  the  axle  ? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  caused  the  mark  on  the  axle.  Now,  will  you  state  in  what 
position  yon  assumed  that  rail  was  when  it  struck  the  axle?  A.  We 
assumed  that  the  locomotive  struck  the  rail  and  turned  it  aside,  and 
the  truck  of  the  forward  car  went  outside  of  that  rail,  and  that  is 
what  carried  the  car  so  far  to  the  right,  ten  or  twelve  ftet  to  the 
right,  also  turning  the  rail  in  ;  then  the  brake  beam  was  broken,  a 
section  very  near  the  middle  of  it ;  and  then  there  is  this  mark  on  the 
axle,  and  we  can  find  nothing  else  in  or  around  the  place  that  could 
mark  it  in  that  way. 

Q.  How  long  is  the  piece  of  the  rail  that  lay  between  the  first  and 
second  cars  ;  that  is,  of  the  sixty- foot  rail,  how  much  could  you 
find  there?  A.  I  don't  know  ;  one  end  of  it  is  in  sight,  but  the  other 
end  is  covered  up  with  the  roof  of  a  car  which  lies  there. 

Q.  You  don't  know  how  long  it  was,  whether  it  was  the  whole  rail 
or  a  part  of  it?     A.    No. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  sa}*  even  that  the  rail  was  broken,  can  you? 
How  do  you  know  but  the  whole  rail  is  there?  A.  It  don't  look  as 
though  it  was. 

Q.  You  cannot  say  but  what  the  whole  rail  is  there,  from  any  measure- 
ments, can  you?  A.  No;  but  I  think  I  can  tell  the  difference  at  a 
guess  between  sixty  feet  and  forty. 

Q.  Have  you  noticed  to  see  how  much  of  it  was  covered  up  ?  A.  No, 
I  have  not;  it  is  there,  where  it  shows  for  itself. 

Q.  If  that  rail  was  carried  along  as  you  would  assume  it  was,  it 
was  carried  along  in  front  of  the  second  car,  was  it  not?  or  of  the 
first  car,  —  which?     A.    No  ;   by  the  second  car. 

Q.  Carried  along  in  front  of  the  second  car?  Then  no  car  of  that 
train  passed  over  it  at  al!  ?     A.    No. 

Q.  The  hind  wheels  of  the  second  car  did  not  pass  over  it,  did 
they?  A.  Both  trucks  of  the  second  car  were  so  near  together  that 
they  touched  each  other.     No  wheels  passed  over  that  rail,  except  the 


APPENDIX.  109 

engine  and  tender  wheels ;  they  could  not  possibly;  all  others  were 
held  up  otherwise. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  a  journal  broke,  or  an  axle,  or  a  brake  rod,  and 
that  caused  the  accident?  A.  I  do  not  know;  we  are  looking  for 
whatever  indications  we  can  find. 

Q.  When  did  you  form  this  theory  in  relation  to  the  rail  bringing 
up  against  the  axle  and  causing  the  accident,  the  theory  you  have 
advanced  to-day?  A.  I  have  been  looking  over  for  several  days 
what  matter  we  had,  up  the  road  and  down,  for  whatever  marks  I 
could  find.  When  I  found  this  mark  I  studied  that  to  find  what  could 
have  marked  it.  I  could  find  nothing  else  that  could  possibly  have 
marked  it  in  the  shape  it  was  ;  and  from  the  fact  I  had  seen  this  ra'l 
on  the  bank.  I  studied  that,  —  and  I  was  out  there  most  of  the  day 
Sunday  and  looked  over  it  then,  and  saw  the  rail  still  there,  —  and  was 
informed  that  the  balance  of  the  rail  was  found  below  in  the  highway, 
and  that  the  rail  was  broken.  After  I  had  seen  it  the  first  time,  and 
before  this  idea  occurred  to  me,  the  roof  of  the  car  was  moved  by  the 
wreckers  and  covered  it  up,  so  I  can  only  say,  as  regards  the  broken 
rail,  that  it  is  reported  broken,  and  I  think,  from  the  space  it  occupies, 
both  hidden  and  seen,  that  there  must  be  some  of  it  gone. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  please  state  as  nearly  as  3-011  can  when  3-011  formed 
the  theory,  when  you  began  to  attempt  to  demonstrate  this  theory? 
A.  Can  you  tell  me  what  day  I  was  on  the  stand  here?  I  think  it 
was  the  day  after  that ;  I  think  it  was  the  day  after  I  was  called  here. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     The  16th,  Wednesday. 

Mr.  Richards.  I  was  asked  to  account  for  the  telescoping,  and  I 
could  see  no  way  to  account  for  it,  I  could  see  no  way  to  account  for 
the  severe  shock.  I  commenced  then  studying  the  wreck,  looking  for 
some  way  to  account  for  that  shock,  and  time  developed  this. 

Q.  But  you  didn't  think  enough  of  3-our  theoiy  to  see  whether  the 
rail  was  broken  or  not?  A.  I  didn't  consider  it  necessary,  from  the 
fact  that  before  I  brought  this  up  a  man  told  me  —  one  of  our  men  — 
that  the  rail  was  broken,  and  that  a  piece  was  below  ;  I  found  it 
covered,  and  I  didn't  care  to  lift  the  roof  off  to  see.  As  the  evidence 
will  show  for  itself,  as  the  rail  will  show  for  itself  whether  it  is  broken 
or  not,  it  wasn't  necessary  for  me  to  uncover  it.  I  had  enough  else 
to  do.  There  is  no  hiding  the  evidence.  There  is  the  rail  and  there 
is  the  axle,  and  everything  relating  to  it  has  been  preserved,  so  far  as 
possible. 

Q.  If  you  had  examined  that  rail,  could  3-011  have  found  anything 
from  that  examination,  do  you  think,  that  would  have  helped  your 
theory?  Supposing  you  had  examined  to  see  how  much  it  was  bent, 
what  the  nature  of  the  end  of  the  rail  was,  what  marks  there  were  on 
it,  wouldn't  it  have  helped   to    substantiate  your  theory?     A.    If  I 


200  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

could  have  seen  the  rail  immediately  after  seeing  the  axle,  and  before 
it  became  soiled,  very  likely  I  might  have  found  a  connection  between 
the  two ;  but  it  was  too  late.  Then  I  might  have  found  a  mark  on 
the  end  of  the  rail,  where,  acting  as  a  gouge  or  chisel,  it  conformed 
somewhat  to  the  sears  on  the  axle. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  AVilliams.)  Is  it  your  idea  that  when  that  rail  broke, 
the  broken  end  —  that  is,  the  south  end  of  the  broken  piece — was 
carried  under  the  first  axle,  or  over  the  first  axle  of  the  second  car? 
A.  No  ;  my  idea  is  that  that  piece  is  the  piece  which  is  found  below  ; 
that  the  engine  broke  the  rail ;  that  the  tender  went  over  ;  that  the 
first  car  turned  the  rail  aside  from  its  fastening  and  moving  it  for- 
ward ;  thence  going  from  there,  knocking  out  the  rear  truck  of  the 
first  car,  it  was  carried  up  on  to  the  bank  and  dropped  down.  Then 
the  rail  was  in  condition,  thrown  from  its  fastenings,  to  reach  this 
axle. 

Q.  In  what  condition  do  3'ou  suppose  it  to  have  been?  What  was 
the  position  of  the  rail  according  to  your  idea?  A.  Ripped  out  of 
its  place  and  turned  upwards  slightly. 

Q.  Which  end  turned  upwrards?  A.  The  south  end  of  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  rail. 

Q.  That  is,  the  short  section?  A.  No  ;  not  the  piece  broken  off, 
but  the  rail  which  remained,  and  which  was  afterwards  torn  out  of  its 
fastening. 

Q.  Then  your  idea  is,  it  was  the  long  piece  remaining?  A.  What 
you  might  call  the  north  end  of  the  rail,  the  Boston  end  of  the 
rail. 

Q.  The  broken  end,  too?  A.  Well,  I  think  that  is  the  longest 
p;ece  ;  I  think  it  must  be  the  longest  piece. 

Q.    The  north  side  of  the  break?     A.    The  north  side  of  the  break. 

Q.    That  that  stood  up  in  some  way  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  that  caught  the  first  axle  of  the  second  car?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  How  would  it  catch  it?  How  could  it,  standing  up  in  that 
way,  possibly  get  a  grip  ?  A.  All  it  required  was  that  the  height  should 
be  right.  The  brake  beam  was  smashed,  and  if  it  was  raised  up  out 
of  its  position  it  had  only  got  to  be  raised  a  few  inches  to  strike  the 
brake  beam,  and  in  severing  the  brake  beam  it  would  be  carried  up 
the  balance.  The  brake  beams,  some  of  them,  are  as  low  as  five 
inches  from  the  rail ;  but  some  are  higher,  according  to  the  style  of 
the  brake.  Probably  the  height  of  this  brake  beam  would  be  about 
six  inches. 

Q.  So  3'our  theory  is  that  the  whole  of  the  injury  to  the  axle  was 
made  by  the  north  end,  the  broken  end  of  the  rail?  A.  The  south 
end  of  the  north  piece  of  the  rail. 


APPENDIX.  201 

Q.  That  was  pointing  towards  Dedham,  wasn't  it?  A.  Pointing 
towards  Dedham. 

Q.  Now,  what  I  want  you  to  tell  me  is  how  that  could  possibly  get 
into  the  truck?  A.  Well,  it  was  torn  out  by  the  trucks  of  the  first 
car,  torn  from  its  fastenings,  and  the  end  turned  inward,  and  in 
turning  the  rail  inward  the  truck  went  outward  (the  car  went  some 
ten  or  twelve  feet  to  the  right),  and  the  wheels  of  the  second  car 
received  this  blow  which  turned  the  truck  round  cornenvise,  just  as  it 
was  seen  there  that  morning, — drove  it  back  under  the  car,  tore  the 
other  one  from  its  fastenings,  and  caused  the  shock  which  telescoped 
and  knocked  the  whole  mass  together. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Richards,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  back  truck  of 
that  second  car  was  sufficiently  strong  to  carry  the  forward  truck  and 
the  piece  of  rail  over  a  hundred  feet,  over  that  road-bed,  without 
being  knocked  out  from  under  it?  If  I  understand  you,  the  grip  on 
this  forward  axle  was  sufficient  to  cause  this  whole  accident ;  that  is 
your  idea?  A.  No;  it  was  a  blow  of  a  great  many  thousand  tons 
striking  square  against  the  axle,  a  little  underneath  ;  and  as  the  axle 
turned,  it  gouged  out  the  iron  from  it,  and  all  there  was  to  make  it 
let  go  was  the  crippling  of  the  rail  vertically.  If  the  rail  could  have 
been  confined  so  it  could  not  have  crippled,  it  would  have  held  ten 
thousand  tons. 

Q.  Then  your  idea  is  that  having  given  that  blow,  the  rail  was 
caught  up  b}'  the  truck  in  some  way  so  that  afterwards  the  truck  car- 
ried the  rail  along  this  distance?     A.    There  it  is  ;  there  is  the  rail. 

Q.  And  that  is  jour  opinion,  isn't  it?  That  is  what  carried  the 
rail  along?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  3'ou  are  aware,  I  suppose,  that  the  back  truck  of  car  No.  2 
was  substantially  in  position?  You  have  so  testified?  A.  Well,  I 
said  it  was  a  few  feet  from  position  ;  but  let  me  explain :  The  two 
cars  Nos.  2  and  3  were  jammed  together,  and  their  platforms  locked 
together  and  bent  downwards,  and  the  whole  mass  was  locked  so  it 
took  us  some  hours  to  separate  the  parts  of  the  platforms  and  get  the 
truck  out.  This  truck  went  back,  jamming  down  the  platforms,  and 
it  had  the  resistance  of  the  cars  behind  it.  That  is  a  part  of  the  blow 
which  helped  tear  the  platform  out  of  car  No.  3. 

Q.  Now,  to  come  back,  Mr.  Richards,  one  of  two  things  is  cer- 
tainly true,  is  it  not :  Either  that  forward  truck  was  carried  in  its 
place  forward  on  the  embankment  and  then  thrown  back,  or  else  it 
was  thrown  off  on  the  bridge  and  carried  forward  by  the  back  truck  ? 
Something  must  have  held  that  in  place  to  push  it  forward  that  dis- 
tance, must  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  is  it  your  idea  that  that  truck  was  thrown  out  of  place  by 
that  rail  ?     A.  Certainly  ;  it  was  started  from  its  place  then. 


202  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Then  the  back  truck  of  the  car  must  have  carried  the  forward 
truck  that  one  hundred  feet,  mustn't  it?  A.  No,  sir;  not  by  any 
means. 

Q.  How  can  it  be  otherwise?  A.  Isn't  there  a  lot  of  rods  and 
connections?  Wasn't  there  a  three-quarter  rod  which  held  the  other 
truck  of  the  first  car  from  going  down  the  bank?  Might  not  these 
rods,  after  the  shock  ceased,  have  held  that  for  half  a  mile?  Isn't 
the  iron  in  these  rods  sufficient  to  account  for  it,  to  hold  it  up  and 
cany  it  over?  Doesn't  the  blow  striking  cornerwise  indicate  suffi- 
ciently that  the  truck  was  thrown  over  from  the  side? 

Q.  One  question  at  a  time.  I  am  asking  you.  I  don't  know  any- 
thing about  this  railroad  business  at  all.  Is  there  any  rod  or  iron 
underneath  the  car  that  is  sufficient  to  carry  along  a  displaced  truck 
a  hundred  feet?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  rod?  A.  Well,  the  truss  rod,  if  it  combined  with 
that.  Under  most  cars,  or  at  least  under  many  cars,  there  are  four 
inch  and  a  quarter  truss  rods ;  either  one  of  them  would  lift  half  a 
whole  train  up.  Those  are  sagged  downwards  over  posts.  Besides 
that  there  are  the  brake  rods,  which  will  sustain  the  pressure  of  the 
brake.     Those  became  snarled  together  in  all  sorts  of  ways. 

Q.  Now,  on  your  theor}'  it  is  necessary  that  that  second  car  should 
have  travelled  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  without  a  forward  truck? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  let  me  state  that  I  have  known  a  car  to  travel  a 
mile  without  a  forward  truck,  and  with  no  wreck.  The  car  was 
coupled  to  the  other  cars  and  well  locked  ;  and  if  the  truck,  on  a  good 
track,  is  taken  out  carefully,  it  will  be  perfectly  safe  to  take  out  the 
forward  truck  of  any  car  and  draw  the  car  for  miles. 

Q.  Notwithstanding  there  was  a  blow  which  was  sufficient  to  knock 
that  bridge  down  and  break  the  rail?  A.  No;  the  removal  of  the 
truck  alone,  1  stxy. 

Q.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  rather  peculiar,  is  it  not,  that 
the  car  should  have  gone  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  without  a  truck? 
A.    Yes,  sir ;  the  whole  thing  is  peculiar. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  Whether  you  have  any  means  of  know- 
ing, assuming  the  rail  was  broken,  whether  it  was  broken  at  the  south 
end  or  the  north  end?  A.  We  have  the  end  which  will  fix  the  north 
end  of  the  rail  by  its  position  in  the  chair  ;  that  would  indicate  which 
the  north  end  of  the  rail  was. 

Q.  Did  j'ou  see  the  rails  on  the  south  abutment,  —  I  mean  at  the  end 
of  the  abutment?  A.  I  saw  them  from  the  top  of  the  abutment,  but 
not  to  pay  any  attention  to  them.  Looking  down  from  the  top  of  the 
abutment  wall  the  rails  were  still  there  with  the  ties  attached  to  them  ; 
I  saw  them. 

Q.   Will  you  state  what  the   position  was  of  those   long  rails? 


APPENDIX.  203 

A.  As  I  remember  it,  the  rails  and  ties  were  still  together,  forming,  as 
it  were,  a  platform,  an  inclined  plane. 

Q.  The  rails  were  bent  down,  but  not  broken?  A.  I  didn't  see 
any  breaks. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  I  understand  you  that  that  rail  must 
have  been  pushed  by  the  secoud  car,  by  the  end  being  against  the 
axle,  and  so  carried  to  the  other  side  of  the  bridge?  A.  Not  neces- 
sarily. After  the  shock  that  moved  the  truck,  the  rail  then  could 
change  its  position,  and  the  trucks,  or  any  part  of  the  car,  become 
the  carriage  which  carried  it  over.  While  it  was  partially  in  position 
it  would  offer  a  great  resistance  ;  when  it  was  moved  some  from  its 
position,  which  no  doubt  would  be  done  when  the  rail  threw  the  truck 
back,  then  the  whole  condition  would  be  changed. 

Q.  If  the  end  of  that  rail  slipped  up  over  any  piece  of  iron  under 
the  car,  it  would  be  ripped  up  its  whole  length  and  carried  on? 
A.  ]t  would  depend  on  the  conditions.  If  it  once  got  over  the  axle 
the  chances  are  the  axle  would  pass  along  under  it,  lifting  it  up  from 
the  fastenings. 

Q.  If  the  car  was  off  the  track  with  the  end  of  this  rail  sticking  up 
in  that  way,  it  might  have  caught  over  the  axle  or  over  some  other 
rod  and  been  ripped  right  up  and  carried  along,  might  it  not? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  mean,  then,  to  say  to  Mr.  Williams  that  according 
to  your  theory  the  axle  which  struck  the  end  of  this  rail  carried  the 
rail  clear  across  the  bridge  and  up  on  to  the  bank?  A.  Not  by  any 
means  ;  that  would  not  have  been  possible.  But  after  striking  the  rail, 
it  lost  its  hold  ;  passing  then  over  some  of  the  parts  of  the  trucks  that 
would  easily  lift  it  and  draw  it  from  its  fastenings,  and  carry  it  on, 
and  it  then  became  loaded  on  to  some  part  of  the  car.  When  it 
received  the  blow  it  must  have  been  nearly  in  a  straight  line  ;  but  in 
passing  over  the  axle,  changing  the  whole  position  and  passing  some 
parts  of  the  car  trucks  under  it,  that  would  lift  it  and  draw  the 
spikes. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to 
pursue  further  the  investigation  in  regard  to  that  rail  until  we  know 
what  the  hidden  end  of  it  is,  and  we  are  now  considerably  in  the  dark 
with  regard  to  that.  I  have  spoken  to  Mr.  Doane  and  requested  hi  in 
to  go  out  and  make  an  examination  of  the  condition  of  that  rail. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  had  on  that  bridge  these  sixty-foot 
rails,  and  there  was  a  Fisher  &  Norris  joint  at  this  end  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  a  Fisher  &  Norris  joint  at  the  other  end?  A.  I  presume 
there  was.  I  don't  know  about  the  further  end  ;  I  paid  no  attention 
to  that.     I  presume  they  were  all  Fisher  &  Norris  joints. 


204  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  there  was  a  Fisher  &  Norris  joint 
in  the  middle?     A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  Can  any  one  tell?  A.  I  presume  the  superintendent,  Mr. 
Folsom,  can. 

Mr.  Folsom.     No,  I  cannot. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Will  James  Folsom  know? 

Mr.  Folsom.     Yes. 

Adjourned  to  Friday,  March  25,  at  10.30  a.m. 


EIGHTH    DAY. 

Friday,  March  25,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  10.30. 

Testimony  of  Henry  Austin  Whitney. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.   Boston. 

Q.  Occupation?  A.  President  of  the  Boston  &  Providence 
Railroad. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  president?  A.  Since  the  1st  of 
January,  1876  ;  and  during  the  preceding  year,  1875,  during  the 
absence  of  Governor  Clifford,  I  was  acting  president  for  about  six 
months. 

Q.  Have  any  complaints  in  regard  to  this  bridge  as  being  unsafe 
ever  reached  you  during  your  term  of  office?  A.  Never,  sir,  except- 
ing a  notice  which  I  understood  came  from  Mr.  Herschel,  which,  I 
understand,  was  addressed  to  the  superintendent,  and  of  which  he 
made  mention  to  me.     I  never  heard  an}'  other  complaint  than  that. 

Q.  What  action  did  you  take  at  that  time  in  regard  to  it?  A.  I 
can't  recollect  at  this  period,  but  I  presume  that  I  agreed  with  the 
superintendent  that  a  test  should  be  made  of  the  bridge,  which  I  was 
informed  afterwards  had  been  made  by  Mr.  George  Folsom. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  the  report  was  that  he  made  in  regard 
to  it?  A.  I  can't  recollect  the  report,  because  it  was  a  verbal  one  ; 
but  had  it  been  otherwise  than  that  the  bridge  was  sound  and  safe,  of 
course  I  should  have  recollected  it. 

Q.  From  that  time  on  have  you  had  any  anxiety  in  regard  to  the 
bridge,  or  have  you  taken  airy  measures  especiall}*  with  reference  to 
the  bridge  to  have  it  tested  ?  A.  No,  sir.  I  was  asked  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  directors,  the  latter  part  of  February  last,  I  think  in  con- 


APPENDIX.  205 

versation  after  the  meeting  had  adjourned,  by  Mr.  Robeson,  whether 
I  felt  that  that  bridge  was  safe,  and  I  told  him  entirely  so,  as  after 
the  examination  that  had  lately  been  made  by  Mr.  George  Folsom 
he  had  spoken  to  me  verbally  about  it;  not  by  any  formal  report, 
simply  in  conversation  about  various  matters  relating  to  the  road. 
He  said  that  he  had  been  very  carefully  over  it,  and  he  considered  it 
was  in  a  safe  condition.  I  should  never  have  thought  of  Mr.  Robe- 
son's conversation  again  but  for  the  accident. 

Q.  Was  that  the  whole  of  the  conversation?  A.  That  was  all, 
sir. 

Q.  Were  you  conversant  with  the  details  of  the  contract  for  re- 
building that  bridge  at  the  time  it  was  built?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  was  not. 
I  recollect  seeing  Mr.  Hewins  at  the  station  frequently  at  the  time, 
but  I  do  not  profess  to  have  been  conversant  with  the  terms  of  the 
contract.  If  I  had  been,  I  don't  think  I  should  have  been  much  the 
wiser  at  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  tests  were  made  of  the  bridge  after  it 
was  built?  A.  I  know  that  it  was  tested  by  a  heavy  load  being  run 
upon  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  details  of  the  test,  or  anything  about  it? 
A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Whitney  (I  don't 
know  but  it  has  been  covered  before)  if  there  was  ever  any  report 
made  whereby  there  was  a  committee  of  the  directors  appointed  to 
look  at  this  bridge?  A.  No.  sir;  never  to  my  knowledge.  I  have 
heard  a  rumor  of  that  kind,  but  I  have  taken  the  opportunity  of  going 
over  the  records  to  see  if  there  was  any  reference  made  to  it,  and 
there  is  not  the  slightest  record,  and  there  would  have  beeu  most  cer- 
tainly if  there  had  been  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Did  Mr.  Robeson  inform  you  that  he 
asked  you  about  that  bridge  by  reason  of  a  complaint  that  had  been 
made  to  him?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  some  one  had  expressed  fears  concerning 
the  safety  of  the  bridge?     A.    Not  to  my  recollection,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  as  to  the  occasion  of  that  conversa- 
tion? A.  The  occasion  of  that  conversation  was  that  I  was  making 
a  statement  of  the  proposed  improvements  of  the  present  year,  and  I 
ran  over  quite  a  number.  Amongst  others,  there  was  to  be  a  new 
station  at  Stoughton,  and,  says  I,  "  When  I  have  finished  the  bridge 
at  Dedham,  I  shall  commence  on  the  bridge  over  Mother  Brook  ;  then 
I  shall  go  to  the  Bussey  bridge."  And  I  recollect  the  remark  which 
Mr.  Robeson  made,  which  I  asked  him  if  he  recollected.  lie  Baid, 
"  I  think  you  have  got  about  as  much  as  you  can  get  through  with 
this  year."     It  was  on  that  occasion  that  he   asked  me  if  I  thought 


206  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

that  bridge  was  safe,  and  I  replied  that  I  did,  from  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Folsora  had  very  recently  told  me  that  he  had  made  an  examination 
of  it,  and  I  had  very  great  faith  in  Mr.  Folsom. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Folsom  had  never  had  any  practical 
experience  in  bridge  building?  A.  I  knew  that  he  had  built  or 
superintended  a  great  many  bridges  on  our  road,  but  not  as  a  scien- 
tific engineer  —  I  presumed  not;  but  I  assumed  that  he  had  attained 
great  skill  and  knowledge  from  his  acquaintance  with  the  bridges  on 
our  road. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  he  superintended  the  construction  of 
the  Bussev  bridge?  A.  I  did  not,  sir.  I  have  always  understood 
that  Mr.  Hewins  superintended  it. 

Q.  Was  that  your  usual  custom,  when  you  made  a  contract  for  the 
building  of  a  bridge,  to  have  the  contractor  superintend  the  con- 
struction? A.  That  was  the  first  bridge  I  had  any  experience  with. 
I  had  just  come  into  the  presidency  at  that  time.  But  I  know  that 
since  then,  when  we  have  had  bridges  of  any  importance  built,  we 
have  had  engineers  summoned  to  examine  the  tests  of  the  contractors, 
sometimes  two  or  three,  especially  the  bridge  that  we  built  at  Valley 
Falls,  which  has  a  span,  I  think,  of  365  feet.  I  was  alarmed  about 
it,  that  very  year,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  owing  to  a  freshet  at 
Worcester,  and  it  occurred  to  me  that  it  ought  to  be  looked  to.  I 
went  down  there  myself,  and  then  got  Mr.  Minot  to  go  with  me,  and 
he  made  a  report,  and  I  made  a  report  to  the  board  of  directors,  and 
asked  them  to  go.  We  went  down  and  examined  that  bridge, 
and  Mr.  Minot  made  a  report  that  in  case  of  a  sudden  disaster,  like 
the  giving  way  of  the  dams  above  there,  that  should  let  some  of 
the  debris  down  against  the  abutments  of  that  bridge,  or  against  the 
piers  in  the  centre,  they  were  not  ample  for  the  heavy  traffic  over  it ; 
and  I  was  forthwith  instructed  to  have  that  bridge  replaced  as  speedily 
as  possible,  which  was  done.  I  think  we  employed  three,  if  not  four, 
engineers  to  examine  the  specifications  of  the  contractors,  the  Edge- 
more  Iron  Companjr  of  Delaware,  and  to  see  that  all  was  right.  I 
recollect  that  Mr.  George  Folsom  asked  to  have  some  of  the  members 
strengthened,  made  more  heavy  than  was  required  by  what  the  engi- 
neer thought  absolutely  necessary.  In  regard  to  this  Bussey  bridge, 
as  I  said,  it  was  my  first  experience,  I  think.  I  had  no  knowledge 
about  the  matter  at  that  time.  This  bridge  that  Mr.  Minot  examined 
was  in  part  built  that  same  year,  and  completed  the  next  year. 

Q.  Since  then  has  it  been  j'our  practice  to  employ  some  person 
with  special  knowledge  in  the  construction  of  bridges?  A.  We  have 
built  no  bridges  since  that  time,  except  highway  bridges. 

Q.  You  employed  Mr.  Minot  in  that  case,  who  is  a  bridge  expert, 
did  you?    A.    Yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  207 

Q.  Have  you  employed  him  to  examine  an}'  other  bridges?  A. 
He  built  for  us  the  iron  bridge  at  Hazlewood  station  this  summer. 
The  construction  of  that  bridge  was  under  his  control.  The  reason 
it  was  put  into  his  hands,  however,  was  that  Mr.  Folsom  had  as 
much  as  he  could  attend  to  at  Dedhara. 

Q.  Should  you  consider  Mr.  Folsom  as  competent  as  Mr.  Minot  to 
judge  of  the  strength  and  Qtness  of  a  bridge?  A.  I  should,  for 
a  plain,  simple  bridge,  that  went  across  at  right  angles. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  have  any  of  the  strain  sheets  of  this 
bridge?  A.  I  have  asked  whether  they  were  in  existence,  and  I 
have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  that  they  were. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  caused  an  examination  to  be  made  for  those 
strain  sheets?  A.  Day  before  yesterday,  I  think  it  was,  I  asked  Mr. 
Folsom  if  they  were  in  our  office.  He  said  he  had  never  seen  them 
since  the  bridge  was  built ;  if  the}'  were  anywmere,  they  were  probably 
at  Roxbury. 

Q.  Will  you  take  pains  to  make  further  inquiry,  an  exhaustive  in- 
quiry, whether  those  strain  sheets  are  in  existence?  A.  I  will,  to- 
day. 

Q.  Was  the  contract  for  the  construction  of  this  bridge  brought 
before  the  board  of  directors?  A.  1  think  not,  sir.  The  probabili- 
ties are  that  it  was  not,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not  an  en- 
tirely new  structure  ;  it  was  more  in  the  nature  of  repairs  of  a  bridge, 
than  building  an  entirely  new  structure.  I  should  rather  doubt  if  it 
ever  came  to  their  notice. 

Q.  When  you  build  bridges  now  do  you  have  the  material  tested? 
A.  I  don't  know,  sir,  whether  we  do  or  not;  we  have  the  bridges 
tested. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  employ  an  inspector,  independently 
of  the  contractor,  to  watch  the  work  at  the  iron  works?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
we  do  not. 

Q.  Take  the  building  of  the  Dedham  bridge,  which  is  now  being 
constructed,  do  you  know  whether  any  of  the  material  of  that  bridge 
has  been  tested?  A.  I  presume  it  has  been  tested  at  the  works  ;  but 
I  don't  know,  sir. 

Q.    By  any  one  representing  the  railroad?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  it  has  not  been?  A.  None  of  the 
iron  work  has  gone  up  there  as  yet ;  nothing  but  masonry  has 
gone  up  as  yet,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  had  the  talk  with  Mr.  Robeson  to  which  you 
have  referred  did  you  send  word  to  any  one  regarding  the  strength 
of  that  bridge?  A.  I  never  had  any  correspondence,  nor  do  I 
recollect  of  any  conversation  with  any  person,  except  it  may  have 
been  Mr.  George  Folsom. 


208  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  the  letter  of  the  Railroad  Commission- 
ers in  1881  was  brought  before  the  Board?     A.    I  think  not,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  see  it?     A.    I  saw  the  letter. 

Q.    It  "was  called  to  3'our  attention?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  has  been  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
board  of  directors?  A.  I  don't  think  it  has  been,  sir;  except  it  has 
been  brought  out  in  the  evidence  here,  which  they  have  all  read. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Aciiorn.)  Mr.  Whitney,  you  said  that  you  have  not 
known  of  any  complaint  about  the  bridge  or  in  relation  to  it.  Is  it 
customary  for  complaints  of  that  sort  to  be  reported  to  you?  A.  I 
think  that  they  would  be,  sir.  Of  course,  every  little  detail  of  the 
road  is  not  mentioned  to  me,  but  as  a  rule  almost  everything  is 
brought  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Are  not  those  complaints  more  generally  made  to  the  superin- 
tendent, and  taken  charge  of  by  the  superintendent  than  by  you? 
A.    They  are  more  generally  made  to  the  superintendent. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  this  recommendation  for  tests  by  the  Railroad 
Commissioners  in  1881,  I  think  you  say  that  came  to  your  attention? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  that  was  called  to  my  attention. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  the  Railroad  Commissioners  recom- 
mended more  than  one  test,  —  continuous  tests?  A.  I  had  forgotten 
that  fact,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  cannot  give  an}*  reason  why  that  recommendation 
was  not  followed  out,  and  subsequent  tests  made  of  the  bridge  by  the 
road?  A.  Excepting  that  there  was  constant  examination  being 
made  by  Mr.  Folsom. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  examination  as  made  by  Mr.  Folsom  suffi- 
cient to  determine  whether  the  bridge  was  in  a  suitable  condition  for 
travel  or  not?     A.    I  did,  at  that  time,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  yon  considered  Mr.  Folsom  a  competent 
judge  of  a  simple  bridge,  in  testing  it.  This  bridge  is  not  simple  and 
not  at  right  angles.  Would  you  state  that  you  consider  him  a  com- 
petent official  to  make  a  test  of  that  bridge,  and  determine  whether  it 
was  safe  or  not?  A.  I  did  so  consider  him,  sir.  I  don't  think  Mr. 
Fulsom  ever  liked  it. 

Q.  In  the  light  of  what  has  been  recently  developed,  would  you 
now  consider  him  so?  A.  I  think  not;  I  should  prefer  a  scientific 
engineer  for  a  bridge  that  is  built  in  that  manner. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  What  was  your  reason,  Mr.  Whitne}',  for 
saying  to  Mr.  Robeson  that  after  you  had  finished  the  Dedham  bridge 
you  would  go  to  the  bridge  over  Mother  Brook,  and  then  to  the  Bus- 
sev  bridge?  A.  Because  that  was  the  order  which  we  proposed; 
those  came  in  sequence. 

Q.    What  did  you  mean  to  do  at  Bussey  bridge?     A.    That  was 


APPENDIX.  209 

not  full}'  determined.  I  met  Mr.  Hewins  about  six  or  seven  months 
ago,  some  time  during  the  summer,  on  the  Common,  and  joined  him, 
and  referred  to  his  having  formerly  been  in  our  service.  He  said, 
"You  know  I  am  no  longer  building  bridges;  I  am  in  charge  of  an 
electric  light."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  we  shall  probably  get  at  your 
bridge  next  summer,  some  time."  Said  he,  "  If  I  can  be  of  any  ser- 
vice to  you,  I  wish  }'on  would  call  upon  me.  I  shall  not  make  any 
charge."  I  told  him  I  didn't  think  we  should  need  him,  because  we 
proposed  to  build  a  different  structure. 

Q.  Why  were  you  going  to  disturb  the  bridge  at  all?  A.  Because 
we  were  going  to  build  a  double  track  ;  otherwise  I  should  not  have 
thought  of  it.  I  had  asked  Mr.  George  Folsom  if  he  thought  we  had 
better  continue  that  bridge  and  double  it  up,  and  he  said  no,  he 
should  not  advocate  that,  there  were  too  many  members  in  it.  And 
it  was  that  conversation  with  Mr.  Folsom  which  led,  some  time  last 
year,  —  I  have  forgotten  when,  we  have  had  this  matter  of  double 
track  before  us  for  a  year  and  a  half,  —  to  this  remark  to  Mr.  Hewins. 

Q.  Then  when  you  speak  of  going  from  one  form  of  bridge  to 
another,  you  mean  that  you  contemplated  preparing  the  bridge  for  a 
double  track  ?     A.    For  a  double  track. 

Q.  Not  on  account  of  any  anxiety  which  you  felt  in  regard  to  the 
bridge?     A.    Not  the  slightest. 

Q.  In  the  last  ten  years,  since  you  have  been  president,  what 
bridges  have  been  built,  or  rebuilt,  or  removed  on  the  road?  A. 
Well,  sir,  we  have  done  away  with  two  bridges  at  Boylston  Street  by 
filling  up  solid,  except  allowing  for  one  conduit  under  the  road  for 
the  discharge  of  Stony  Brook  ;  —  no,  there  it  was  diverted  entirely  to 
the  right,  coming  towards  Boston.  Then  a  very  bad  place  at  Forest 
Hills  was  rilled  in  solid,  with  the  exception  of  two  culverts  built  by 
the  city.  Then  two  highway  bridges  have  been  built  fur  safety  during 
this  past  3'ear,  one  in  Attleborough  and  one  in  Hyde  Park.  At  Hyde 
Park  the  main  bridge,  the  county  bridge,  has  been  renewed.  The 
tressle-work  over  Canton  meadows  was  taken  out  and  the  abutments 
renewed  ;  and  if  I  recollect  rightly,  I  beams,  about  sixteen  feet  in 
span,  were  substituted,  making  two  spans  of  sixteen  feet.  Then 
when  we  come  to  Attleborough,  Hebronville  and  Dodgc-ville,  I  think 
there  was  one  bridge  275  feet  long  that  was  done  away  with,  and  two 
arches  were  put  in  its  place  ;  and  those  arches  I  should  think  were 
about  seventy  feet,  —  about  thirty-flve  feet  each;  and  if  1  recollect 
rightly  this  long  bridge  was  done  away  with  by  filling  solid  ;  and  at 
Dodgeville  and  Hebronville  there  have  been  two  or  three  or  four 
bridges  done  away  with  in  the  same  way,  by  filling  in  ami  building 
arches.  Then  we  come  to  the  Blackstone  River,  which  is  over  the 
border  about  half  a  mile.     That  was  the  bridge  to  which  I  referred  as 


210  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

having  been  commenced  in  the  same  year  that  the  Bussey  bridge  was, 
anil  completed  the  next  year.  That  was  an  expensive  structure,  cost- 
ing about  $100,000.  About  the  same  time  that  that  bridge  was  oom- 
ph !te il.  I,  with  the  consent  of  my  directors,  had  a  parapet  placed  upon 
the  Canton  viaduct.  That  bridge  was  built  by  the  Edgemore  Com- 
pany, and  Mr.  Edgemore  thought  at  first  that  the  parapet  would  be 
no  use  whatever  ;  but  on  further  consideration  he  thought  if  a  train 
should  strike  that  obliquely,  that  might  save  the  train  from  going  off ; 
and  that  parapet  was  built,  I  recollect,  at  an  expense  of  about 
$12,000. 

Q.  Is  that  a  truss  bridge  or  a  plate  bridge?  A.  It  is  what  is 
called  a  pin  bridge,  —  the  bridge  over  the  Blackstone. 

Q.  That  means,  I  take  it,  that  it  is  an  open  bridge,  a  truss  bridge? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  where  the  fastening  is  with  pins. 

Q.  And  the  object  of  the  parapet  is  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a 
derailed  train  going  over  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  is  building  the  bridge  at  Dedham?  A.  It  is  under  the 
charge  of  Mr.  Folsom. 

Q.  And  the  iron  is  being  furnished  by  the  Boston  Bridge  Company  ? 
A.    I  shall  have  to  ask  Mr.  Folsom. 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.     Yes  ;  the  Boston  Bridge  Company. 
Q.   The  Boston  Bridge  Company  furnish  the  material  ?     A.    The 
Boston  Bridge  Company  furnish  the  material. 

Q.  That  is  to  be  an  iron  truss,  I  take  it?  A.  That  is  to  be  an 
iron  truss,  with  a  solid  floor. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  to  be  a  through  bridge  or  a  deck 
bridge?     A.   It  is  to  be  a  deck  bridge. 

Q.  What  I  mean  is,  whether  the  rails  will  be  on  the  bottom  chord 
of  the  truss  or  on  the  top  chord?  A.  I  assume  that  they  will  be  on 
the  top  ;  I  don't  know. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Is  that  a  highway  bridge  at  Dedham? 
A.    Yes,  sir.     We  shorten  up  that  bridge  very  much,  too. 

Q.  (P»3T  Mr.  Putnam.)  Has  that  been  planned  and  so  far  manu- 
factured wholly  under  Mr.  George  Folsom's  direction?  A.  So  far 
as  I  know  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  the  parapet  on  the  Canton  viaduct 
ever  tested?  A.  I  should  have  been  afraid  to  have  tested  it,  afraid 
of  knocking  it  over.     It  was  never  tested. 

Q.  You  left  out  a  couple  of  bridges  on  your  list,  I  think,  did  you 
not?     A.    I  did  not  pretend  to  give  you  all. 

Q.  I  remember  one  that  you  built  the  past  year  on  the  Dedham 
branch.  A.  I  had  forgotten  that.  The  same  process  of  building  has 
been  carried  on  in  Rhode  Island  as  here,  and  we  have  done  a  great 
deal. 


APPENDIX.  211 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  The  policy  being,  as  I  judge,  from  what 
you  say,  Mr.  Whitney,  to  gradually  substitute  stone  arches  and  short 
spans  for  trusses  and  wide  spans?     A.    Wherever  possible,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Did  Mr.  Folsom  explain  to  you  what  he 
meant  by  there  being  too  many  members  in  this  bridge?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
I  understood,  as  I  apprehend  that  you  would,  not  being  familiar  with 
bridge  building,  that  it  was  not  simple  enough  ;  it  was  too  complex. 

Q.  He  did  not  explain  it  to  you?  That  is  all  I  wanted  to 
know.     A.    I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  Did  you  intend  to  run  a  double  track  over  that  bridge  in  the 
condition  in  which  it  was,  or  did  you  mean  to  change  it?  A.  No, 
sir ;  I  intended  to  change  it,  as  I  stated. 

Q.  That  is,  to  strengthen  that  truss?  A.  No;  I  presumed  we 
should  build  an  entirely  new  bridge  there. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Were  you  aware,  when  this  bridge  was 
rebuilt,  ten  years  ago,  that  it  was  the  first  iron  bridge  that  Mr. 
Folsom  had  had  to  do  with  the  construction  of?  A.  I  was  not  aware 
of  it,  sir,  at  that  time. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  learn  that?  A.  I  first  learned  it  in  his  tes- 
timony here  before  the  Commission,  as  far  as  I  recollect.  I  dare  say 
he  may  have  mentioned  it  to  me,  but  it  was  not  impressed  upon  my 
memory  otherwise. 

(,).  What  means  have  you  taken  to  ensure  the  new  bridge  at  Ded- 
ham  being  a  safe  structure;  and  by  whom  were  the  plans  drawn? 
A.  I  presume  they  were  drawn  by  the  company.  Mr.  Folsom  gave 
to  the  company,  as  I  understand,  what  he  wanted,  —  the  character  of 
the  bridge  that  he  wanted,  —  and  they  furnished  the  specifications 
under  instructions  given  by  him. 

Q.  Is  this  Boston  Bridge  Company  a  company  of  long  standing? 
A.  It  has  built  several  bridges  for  us  ;  I  don't  think  it  is  of  very  long 
standing. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Who  is  the  agent?  A.  That  I  do  not 
know,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  had  the  specifications  examined 
by  an  expert  in  the  matter?  A.  I  don't  think  they  have  been  exam- 
ined by  Mr.  Minot ;  simply  by  Mr.  George  Folsom. 

The  Chairman.  I  think,  under  the  circumstances,  that  the  Railroad 
Commission  would  feel  that  that  bridge  ought  to  be  examined  by  a 
competent  expert. 

The  Witness.  We  propose  to  have  all  our  bridges  examined  very 
shortly  by  a  scientific  engineer. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  might  save  you  expense,  perhaps,  if  these 
specifications  were  examined  by  an  expert  before  the  bridge  is  put  up. 

The  Witness.     They  probably  will  be,  sir. 


212  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pctnam.)  I  understand  that  you  intend  to  have  the 
specifications  of  this  bridge  examined  by  an  expert?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  George  Folsom's  service  for  the  road  antedated  yours  some 
fifteen  years,  did  it  not?  A.  Yes.  sir.  Mr.  Clifford  told  me,  when 
h,  went  away,  that  he  considered  him  one  of  the  most  trustworthy 
and  faithful  servants  that  there  was  on  the  road  ;  he  placed  great  re- 
liance on  his  judgment,  and  I  have  had  reason  to  ever  since,  from 
seeing  the  great  care  that  he  has  used,  as  I  thought. 

Q.  You  consider  him  now,  1  take  it,  a  thoroughly  competent  and 
capable  mechanic  and  constructor?     A.    I  do. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Competent  to  build  iron  bridges?  A. 
Well,  sir,  but  for  the  questions  which  have  been  raised  here,  I  should 
have  felt  perfectly  safe  in  his  building  the  Dedham  bridge  ;  but  under 
the  circumstances  I  should  think  it  would  be  desirable  to  call  in  other 
advice,  in  the  light  of  to-day. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Mr.  Hewins  testified  here  that  he  pre- 
sented the  plans  of  this  bridge  to  Mr.  Folsora,  and  that  Mr.  Folsom 
made  some  suggestions  and  alterations,  and  between  them  both  they 
got  up  this  style  of  bridge.  I  take  it  that,  in  the  light  of  that  evi- 
dence, if  an  engineer  should  give  you  plans  and  specifications  now 
for  an  iron  bridge,  you  would  not  adopt  Mr.  Folsom's  ideas,  would 
you  ?     A.    I  don't  think  I  should,  sir. 

William  R.  Robeson — sworn. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.    Lenox,  Mass. 

Q.    Your  business?     A.    I  am  not  in  active  business  at  present. 

Q.  You  are  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Boston  &  Providence  Rail- 
road?    A.    I  am. 

Q.    How  long  have  you  been  so?     A.    Since  1867. 

Q.  Have  any  complaints  in  regard  to  this  bridge  been  brought  to 
your  attention  during  your  service  as  director?  A.  Never  any  formal 
complaint ;  I  might  say  never  any  complaint. 

Q.  Well,  any  expression  of  anxiety  in  regard  to  its  safety?  A. 
There  was  one  expression  of  anxiety,  and  I  asked  whether  there  was 
any  reason.  There  was  something  said  in  regard  to  additional  ser- 
vice on  the  Dedham  branch,  and  this  remark  was  made  tome:  "I 
have  no  fault  to  find  with  the  service  of  the  road  except  this  bridge." 
Then  I  asked,  "  Do  you  mean  it  seriously?  Do  you  mean  that  you 
have  heard  any  complaint?"  The  reply  was,  "  None  at  all ;  it  is  only 
a  fancy  of  mine."  It  was  said  laughingly  ;  there  has  been  no  serious 
complaint  whatever. 

Q.  By  whom  was  that  said  ?  A.  By  Mrs.  Alfred  Rodman.  There 
was  nothing  serious  in  the  conversation  at  all. 

Q.    Is  that  the  only  expression  of  anxiety  in  regard  to  the  safety  of 


APPENDIX.  213 

the  bridge  that  has  come  to  your  ears?  A.  The  only  one  I  have  ever 
heard. 

Q.  Was  that  in  writing?  A.  Oh,  no;  it  was  a  laughing  conver- 
sation. 

Q.    Never  was  put  in  writing?     A.    Never. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pdtnam  )  Mrs.  Rodman  is  your  sister,  is  she  not? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  sister-in-law  or  half-sister;  hardly  that,  a  connection 
of  my  family. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Was  it  that  conversation  that  led  you  to 
speak  to  Mr.  Whitney  as  he  has  stated?  A.  When  we  were  speak- 
ing of  the  expenses  of  the  road,  what  we  should  be  obliged  to  do,  in 
speaking  of  the  double  track  fur  Dedham,  if  we  got  to  that,  that 
flashed  across  my  mind,  and  I  said  to  Mr  Whitney,  "  Do  you  consider 
that  bridge  entirely  safe?"  and  his  reply  was,  "  I  do."  There  was 
no  further  conversation  ;  never  any  formal  complaint. 

Q.  AVas  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  directors  ?  A .  That  was  at  a 
meeting  of  the  directors,  I  think,  on  the  28th  of  February ;  I  am  not 
sure. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  it  was  while  the  meeting  was  going  on  or 
after  the  meeting?  A.  I  am  not  sure  ;  I  think  it  was  after  the  meet- 
ing. We  were  discussing  it  informally.  I  am  not  quite  sure,  but  I 
think  all  were  present. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  travelling  over  that  bridge?  A.  Occa- 
sionally ;  not  often. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  noticed  anything  out  of  the  way  in  the  motion 
of  the  train  in  going  over  it?     A.I  never  have. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Rodman  speak  of  any  peculiarity  of  that  sort?  A. 
Not  at  all ;  she  merely  said  that  it  was  a  fancy,  from  the  appearance 
of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Did  she  state  it  as  a  peculiar  fancy  of  her  own,  or  as  one  in 
which  other  people  joined?  A.  That  was  all.  It  was  not  a  serious 
conversation.  It  was  merely  a  remark  which  she  made.  Then  I 
said  immediately,  "Do  you  know  of  anything?"  The  reply  was. 
"  Nothing."     There  was  no  further  conversation  about  it. 

Q.  Were  you  a  director  of  the  road  at  the  time  the  contract  with 
Mr.  Hewins  was  made?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  must  have  been,  but  I  have 
no  recollection  about  it.  I  don't  recall  anything  in  regard  to  the 
matter. 

Q.  Was  it  brought  up  at  a  meeting  of  the  directors?  A.  That 
I  cannot  recall,  it  is  so  long  ago. 

Q.  Is  it  customary  for  contracts  for  the  construction  of  bridges  to 
be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  directors?  A.  Everything  to  be 
discussed  is  brought  before  the  directors. 

Q.    Have  you  at  any  time  had  occasion  to  doubt  the  ability  or  the 


214  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

experience  of  Mr.  George  Folsom?     A.    Never;   I  had  always  sup- 
posed him  a  very  competent  man  for  the  position. 

Q.  I  hive  his  qualifications  been  under  discussion  at  the  meetings  of 
the  board  of  directors?  A.  Never,  further  than  that  he  was  a  very 
competent  man  for  the  place.  I  remember  Governor  Clifford  telling 
me  that  he  considered  him  a  very  competent  man  for  the  position.  I 
never  had  reason  to  question  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Let  me  ask  you  if  there  were  any  iron 
bridges  built  during  Governor  Clifford's  administration?  A.  That  I 
cannot  say. 

Mr.  Kinsley.  My  impression  is  that  there  were  not ;  that  they 
have  been  built  since. 

The  Witness.     I  think  not ;  I  think  they  have  all  been  built  since. 
Q.    Mrs.  Rodman  gave  you  her  opinion.     Does  she  travel  over  the 
bridge?     A.    She  travels  over  the  bridge,  and  her  family.     But  this 
was  not  any  opinion  ;  it  was  laughingly  said. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Do  you  recall  what  Mrs.  Rodman  said 
to  you?     A.    Nothing  but  what  I  have  stated. 

Q.  I  don't  understand  that  you  have  attempted  to  state  Mrs.  Rod- 
man's words?     A.    What  would  you  like  to  know? 

Q.  I  would  like  to  know  what  she  said  about  the  bridge,  if  you  can 
recall?  A.  She  merely  remarked  that  she  had  no  complaint  to  make 
of  the  Providence  road,  except  that  bridge.  Then  I  asked  her  if  she 
had  any  knowledge  of,  or  had  ever  heard,  any  complaint  of  it.  She 
replied  that  she  had  not.     She  was  not  speaking  seriously. 

Q.  Did' she  say  that  she  was  not  speaking  seriously?  A.  She 
did  ;  she  had  no  serious  complaint  to  make  ;  she  never  heard  of  any. 
Q.  Did  you  tell  her  that  you  were  going  to  a  meeting  of  the  board 
of  directors  and  would  bring  the  matter  up  there?  A.  I  don't  think 
I  did  ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  it.  I  may  have  said  that  I  would 
bring  the  matter  up. 

Q.  Did  you,  in  point  of  fact,  say  to  her  that  you  would  bring  it  up? 
A.    I  don't  recall  it ;  there  was  no  formal  conversation  at  any  time. 

Q.  How  long  after  this  was  it  that  you  spoke  to  Mr.  Whitney?  A, 
That  I  cannot  tell ;  a  very  short  time. 

Q.  Were  other  members  of  the  board  present  when  you  made  this 
statement?     A.    There  were. 

Q.  Did  you  state  that  a  lady  had  spoken  to  you  about  it?  A.  I 
didn't  speak  to  the  board  at  all ;  I  merely  asked  Mr.  Whitney  that 
question. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Whitney  that  a  lady  had  spoken  to  you  about 
it?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  Mrs.  Rodman  afterwards  about  it  or  send 
any  word  to  her?     A.   Never. 


APPENDIX.  215 

Q.  Or  ask  anybody  else  to  do  so?  A.  Never  ;  there  was  no  serious 
conversation  about  it  at  all.  It  wasn't  mentioned  to  me  as  a  complaint ; 
mereh'  laughingly  spoken  of. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  never  did  mention  Mrs.  Rodman's 
complaint  to  the  directors?  A.  Oh,  no  ;  not  to  the  directors.  I  don't 
know  that  I  thought  anything  about  it.  At  the  time  I  asked  Mr. 
Whitney  we  were  discussing  this  change  to  a  double  track,  and  I 
merely  said,  "  Do  you  consider  that  bridge  perfectly  safe?"  I  suppose 
I  had  it  in  my  mind  thru  that  the  bridge  might  be  used  in  connection 
with  the  double  track,  and  it  was  merely  as  a  matter  of  expense  whether 
we  ought  to  expend  more  money  in  building  a  new  bridge  entirely. 
That  was  in  my  mind  when  I  asked  the  question  ;  not  with  reference 
to  this,  because  I  didn't  pay  any  heed  to  it  particularly. 

Q.  If  you  did  say  to  Mrs.  Rodman  that  you  would  mention  it  to 
the  directors,  I  understand  that  you  didn't  say  it  seriously?  A.  Oh, 
no ;  I  don't  remember  if  I  did  so ;  but  if  I  did  it  was  merely  in  a 
laughing  way. 

Q.  What  was  the  period  of  Governor  Clifford's  presidency?  A.  I 
can  hardly  give  you  the  date. 

Q.  He  immediately  preceded  Mr.  Whitney,  did  he  not?  A.  Yes; 
and  he  succeeded  Judge  Warren  ;  but  the  date  I  cannot  recall  now. 

Q.  It  was  some  eight  or  nine  years  before  1876,  ending  at  that  time, 
was  it  not?     A.    I  should  say  so. 

Q.  Then  if  that  Parker  truss,  the  eastern  truss,  of  that  Bussey 
bridge  was  put  in  four  or  five  years  before  this  truss,  it  must  have 
been  done  under  his  administration,  must  it  not?  A.  That  I  can't 
recall. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Have  you  asked  any  employee  of  the  road 
or  an}'  other  member  of  the  board  of  directors  concerning  this  bridge? 
A.    Never. 

Q.    It  has  never  been  a  subject  of  remark  at  all?     A.   Never. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  The  first  truss,  the  Parker  truss,  was  put 
in  under  Mr.  George  Folsom's  oversight?  A.  I  presume  it  was  ;  but 
on  those  matters  of  detail  I  cannot  state  to  you  anything  definitely. 

Q.  He  was  occupying  the  position  of  bridge  superintendent  at  the 
time?  A.  He  was  occupying  that  position  at  the  time,  and  it  would 
come  under  his  care  naturally. 

Joseph  W.  Balch  —  sworn. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.    Jamaica  Plain. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  President  of  the  Boylston  Insur- 
ance Company. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  director  of  the  Providence  Railroad? 
A.    Since  November,  1873. 


216  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  any  complaints  in  regard  to  the  Bus^ey  bridge  or  expres- 
sions of  anxiety  in  regard  to  its  safety  reached  your  ears? 
A.    Never  until  since  the  disaster. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hearing  Mr.  Robeson  make  an  inquiry  at  the 
meeting  of  the  directors  in  February  in  regard  to  the  bridge?  A.  I 
do  not;  I  suppose  he  spoke  to  Mr.  Whitney.  We  had  probably  dis- 
solved and  were  about  leaving.  I  don't  recollect  his  having  spoken 
in  my  presence. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  anxiety  yourself  in  regard  to  the  bridge? 
A.  Not  the  least.  I  always  supposed  it  to  be  a  very  firm,  solid 
bridge.  I  frequently  passed  under  it,  as  well  as  over  it,  and  knew 
the  bridge  very  well. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Whitney  state  at  a  meeting  of  the  directors 
that  he  proposed  to  rebuild  certain  bridges,  among  which  was  this 
Bussey  bridge  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  what  the  reason  for  rebuilding  was  in  that  case  ? 
A.  I  presumed  it  was  not  on  account  of  any  insecurity  of  the  bridge. 
I  didn't  understand  that  there  was  any  special  reason,  only  it  would 
be  more  convenient  to  have  a  new  bridge  for  the  new  tracks. 

Q.  Were  you  aware  that  the  bridge  was  at  that  time  wide  enough 
for  two  tracks?  A.  I  knew  there  was  a  new  span  put  in  some  time 
ago. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  it  was  then  wide  enough  for  two  tracks  ? 
A.   I  supposed  it  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  discussion  at  that  time  as  to  the  bridge,  what  its 
defects  were,  or  anything  of  that  sort,  in  your  presence?  A.  I  never 
heard  any. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Mr.  Balch,  if  that  bridge  was  safe  for  a 
double  track,  what  was  the  reason  for  building  a  new  bridge? 
A.  That  I  know  nothing  of;  I  only  heard  it  spoken  of,  that  they 
would  probably  build  a  new  bridge. 

Q.  No  explanation  came  to  your  ears?  A.  No  explanation 
whatever. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  having  a  gentleman  approach  you  in  the  cars 
shortly  before  this  disaster  and  protest  against  that  bridge?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.    You  recall  nothing  of  that  kind?     A.    Nothing  of  the  kind. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  refresh  your  recollection  in  this  way,  for  I  have 
no  doubt  you  will  state  the  whole  truth.  Mr.  Israel  G.  Whitney 
travels  on  that  road,  does  he  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  you  frequently  sit  with  him?     A.    Everyday. 

Q.  You  remember  nothing  of  that  kind  being  said  when  he  was 
sitting  with  you?  A.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Whitney  is  willing  to 
come  up  here  and  testify  that  he  never  had  any  fear  of  the  bridge ; 


APPENDIX.  217 

that  the  thought  never  occurred  to  him  ;  that  when'  he  was  on  the 
bridge  he  felt  quite  as  safe  as  anywhere  else  on  the  road. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  3*011  what  he  said,  but  what  somebod}-  else  said 
while  you  were  with  Mr.  Whitney.     A.    I  never  heard  it  said. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  think  it  is  not  fair  to  put  that  question  without 
naming  the  person  who  spoke  to  Mr.  Balch. 

Mr.  Williams.     I  should  do  that,  if  I  could. 

Mr.  Kinsley.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Williams.  You 
do  not  know  the  name  of  the  person  who  made  that  remark  ? 

Mr.  Williams.  It  was  a  stranger.  As  I  was  informed,  a  stranger 
approached  Mr.  Balch  and  did  make  a  protest  against  that  bridge  to 
Mr.  Balch,  and  Mr.  Whitney  was  sitting  with  him.  Of  course,  we 
should  have  the  person,  if  it  was  possible. 

Mr.  Putnam.     You  can  name  }'our  informant. 

Mr.  Williams.     I  don't  propose  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Putnam.     I  think  it  would  be  fair. 

Mr.  Williams.  If  Mr.  Whitney  does  not  recall  it  I  shall  be 
entirely  satisfied  that  it  was  a  mistake. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  shall  ask  the  Chairman  to  be  kind  enough  to  call 
Mr.  Israel  G.  Whitney  at  some  time. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take  Mr.  Whitney's  state- 
ment. If  Mr.  Whitney  says  that  it  is  not  so,  we  will  regard  that 
as  a  false  rumor. 

The  Witness.  It  is  a  matter  that  would  have  made  a  great  im- 
pression upon  me,  because  anything  of  that  kind  I  should  not,  of 
course,  have  forgotten. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  The  question  of  whether  you  were  to 
build  a  new  bridge  or  not  at  that  point  for  a  double  track  was  an 
open  question,  was  it  not ;  that  is,  you  had  not  decided?  A.  There 
had  been  no  definite  conclusion  arrived  at ;  it  was  a  matter  to  be 
looked  into.  The  probability  was  that  a  new  bridge  would  be 
built. 

Q.  Then  the  statement  that  Superintendent  Folsom  has  made  in 
this  examination,  that  they  proposed  to  run  a  double  track  over  it, 
was  not  correct?  A.  I  don't  think  I  get  your  point.  I  don't  think 
there  was  anything  settled  ;  or,  in  fact,  that  any  definite  conclusion 
had  been  arrived  at.  It  was  a  matter  in  embryo,  to  be  determined 
when  we  came  to  it. 

James  A.  Folsom  —  sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence?  A.  80  Alleghany 
Street,  Boston. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ?  A.  I  am  foreman  of  the  carpenters' 
gang  of  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad. 


218  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  Are  you  an}'  relation  of  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom  or  Mr.  George 
Folsom?     A.    I  am  brother  to  Mr.  George  F.  Folsom. 

Q.  When  did  3-011  reach  the  scene  of  the  accident?  A.  About 
eight  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  cars  on  the  north  abutment  at  that  time? 
A.  Not  particularly.  The  crew  from  the  shop  had  commenced  put- 
ting wheels  under  the  second  car  from  the  engine  before  I  got  there. 

Q.    How  many  cars  were  there  on  the  abutment?     A.    Three. 

Q.    Any  portion  of  the  fourth  car?     A.    The  roof  of  the  fourth  car. 

Q.  What  have  you  been  engaged  in  doing  since  that  time?  A.  At 
first  in  removing  the  wreck,  and  then  assisting  in  building  the  new 
bridge. 

Q.  Describe  the  condition  of  those  cars,  beginning  with  the  first 
one  in  the  train.  A.  That  was  on  the  bank,  a  little  more  than  the 
bigness  of  it  one  side  of  the  track. 

Q.  What  about  its  trucks?  A.  No  trucks  under  it  when  I  got 
there. 

Q.  No  trucks  under  the  first  car?  A.  No,  sir;  they  had  the  end 
blocked  up,  and  they  were  blocking  up  the  centre.  One  end  rested 
on  the  ground,  and  the}r  were  blocking  up  under  the  centre  of  the 
car.     No  trucks  under  it. 

Q.    No  trucks  under  the  front  end  of  it?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  the  trucks  of  the  first  car  when  you  got  out  there? 
A.  They  had  them  partly  under  the  second  car,  —  what  they  told  me 
were  the  trucks  of  the  first  car.  They  told  me  that  they  took  the  first 
truck  of  the  first  car,  and  the  second  truck  lay  on  the  bank,  and  they 
had  taken  that  up  and  got  it  under  the  second  car  in  order  to  remove 
the  second  car. 

Q.  Where  was  the  front  truck  of  the  first  car  when  you  got  out 
there?  A.  It  was  under  the  second  car.  The}'  had  put  it  under 
there,  as  I  understood  it. 

Q.    Put  it  under  the  second  car?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  rear  truck  of  the  first  car,  where  was  that?  A.  That 
was  under  the  second  car.  They  had  put  it  there.  As  I  say,  they 
had  got  their  second  car  loaded  on  the  trucks  of  the  first  car.  They 
were  the  only  decent  trucks  there  were  to  load  it  on,  and  I  suppose 
that  was  the  reason.  They  had  that  done  before  I  got  there  ;  that  is, 
Mr.  Richards  and  his  crew  had  it  done. 

Q.  In  what  condition  was  the  second  car?  A.  The  front  platform 
of  it  was  broken  considerably.  The  rear  end  was  telescoped,  as  the}' 
call  it.  The  platform  was  turned  up  towards  the  door,  the  end  of  the 
car  crushed  in  on  one  corner  more  thau  the  other,  on  the  roof. 

Q.  On  which  corner  the  most?  A.  Well,  looking  toward  Boston, 
the  right-hand  corner  of  the  rear  end  of  the  car. 


APPENDIX.  219 

Q.    What  crushed  it  in?     A.    I  don't  know.     I  suppose  the  third 
car  did  it.     It  had  the  appearance  of  it,  I  thought. 
Q.    Any  portion  of  the  third  car  there?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
t{.    What  portion  of  the  third  car?     A.   The  body  of  the  car. 
Q.    No  ;  I  mean  that  crushed  into  the  second  car?     A.    It  was  dis- 
connected from  it  when  I  got  there. 

Q.  The  third  car  was  disconnected  from  the  second  car?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  any  portion  of  the  third  car  left  on  the  second  car?  A.  I 
could  not  say  for  certain.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Miller  platforms 
were  entangled  together,  and,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  a  portion  of  the 
third  car  platform  was  entangled  in  the  second  car  platform. 

Q.  Where  were  the  trucks  of  the  second  car?  A.  They  were  up 
on  the  bank  near  the  abutment,  —  what  they  told  me  were  the  second 
car's  trucks. 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  track?  A.  I  could  not  locate  them 
exactly.     They  were  very  near  the  track,  1  think. 

Q.  On  the  right  or  the  left,  looking  towards  Boston?  A.  On  the 
right. 

Q.  And  the  second  car  was  resting  where?  A.  The  second  car 
was  on  the  trucks  of  the  first  car. 

Q.  Had  they  got  one  or  both  trucks  under  it?  A.  They  had  both 
trucks  in  under  it,  if  I  remember  rightly,  when  I  got  there,  all  ready 
to  remove  the  car  a  little  ways  down  the  track  to  get  it  out  of 
the  way. 

Q.  Where  were  those  trucks,  —  one  at  one  end  and  the  other  at  the 
other?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Were  those  the  only  trucks  under  the  car  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
0-    Were  those  trucks  taken  out  subsequently,  or  moved  in  any 
way?     A.    No,  sir.     I  saw  them  under  the  car  yesterday,  in  the  same 
position  they  were  when  I  saw  them  on  the  track  out  there. 

Mr.  Putnam.  May  I  explain  this?  I  understand  that  the  first  car 
was  so  far  off  the  track  that  it  was  practically  out  of  the  way,  and  so 
it  was  left  there.  But  the  second  car  interfered  with  the  operation  of 
the  track,  and,  its  trucks  being  disabled,  they  took  the  trucks  from  the 
first  car  and  put  them  under  the  second  car,  and  carried  it  off  of  the 
track,  leaving  the  first  car,  without  trucks,  where  it  is  now. 

The  Chairman-.  My  difficulty  is  this:  When  I  got  out  there  the 
first  car  was  out  at  the  side  of  the  track,  minus  the  rear  trucks,  and 
the  second  car  had  two  trucks  towards  the  rear  end  which  looked 
like  the  trucks  belonging  to  that  car.  They  were  then  engaged  in  rais- 
ing the  front  end  of  the  car,  so  as  to  get  one  of  the  trucks  of  the  first 
car  under  it. 


220  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Mr.  Putnam.  You  got  there  before  Mr.  Folsora,  evidently,  or 
before  he  got  to  work. 

The  Chairman.  I  did  not  get  there  until  eleven  or  twelve  o'clock. 
Mr.  Folsom  got  there  at  eight.  I  was  trying  to  make  out  what  the 
explanation  was. 

Q,  What  time  was  it  3-ou  examined  this  second  car?  A.  When  I 
arrived  there  I  immediately  ran  up  to  the  embankment,  and  Mr. 
Richards'  men  were  all  to  work  there  on  that  car,  and  I  then  went 
down  below  and  examined  things  down  there,  and  it  might  have  been 
half  an  hour  or  perhaps  an  hour  before  I  came  up  to  the  top  of  the 
bank  again,  and  then  the  car  was  all  loaded  on  the  trucks.  As  I 
passed,  I  noticed  that,  and  I  thought  to  myself  those  trucks  didn't 
belong  under  that  car.  They  were  about  demolishing  the  third  car 
altogether  to  get  that  out  of  the  way  of  the  track.  Then  I  went  down 
below  and  went  to  work  with  the  men  on  the  cars  down  there  and 
didn't  pay  much  attention  to  the  top  of  the  bank.  I  was  down  below 
all  the  time,  and  in  my  excitement  when  I  arrived  there  I  might  not 
have  noticed  whether  those  trucks  were  under  the  car  at  the  time  I 
arrived  there,  but  when  I  came  up  on  the  bank  again,  I  noticed  that 
they  were.  I  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  cars  up  on  the 
bank  ;  Mr.  Richards  took  care  of  those.  I  commenced  work  down 
below. 

Q.  In  what  condition  did  you  find  the  cars  down  below?  Can  you 
pick  out  from  these  photographs  the  pieces  of  the  various  cars  and 
tell  us  which  cars  they  were  on  the  train  in  their  order?  Take  photo- 
graph number  4  ;  first,  which  was  the  fourth  car  in  the  train?  A.  It 
was  under  that  roof  here.  That  is  what  I  call  number  54.  That  was 
the  fifth  car  in  the  train  ;  and  the  fourth  was  under  this. 

Q.  Completely  under  it?  A.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  one  side  of  it. 
They  were  snarled  in  so  together  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pdtnam.)  Can  you  tell  by  the  construction  whether 
that  piece  belonged  to  54  or  87?  A.  Eighty-seven.  I  see  there  on 
that  piece  the  oval,  which  shows  that  it  was  87.  The  stove  appears 
in  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  identify  that  as  part  of  what  car  in 
the  train?     A.   The  fourth  car. 

Q.    Being  number  what?     A.    Eighty-seven. 

Q.  Which  car  is  that  of  which  the  top  shows?  A.  That  would  be 
the  fifth  car  ;  number  54. 

Q.    Then  the  next  car  was  what?     A.    Number  80. 

Q.  Where  is  that?  A.  That  is  right  there,  with  the  roof  torn 
from  it  and  swung  round. 

Q.   What  was  the  condition  of  this  fourth  car  when  you  got  there  ? 


APPENDIX.  221 

A.  It  was  very  nearly  in  its  present  position.  (As  shown  in  photo- 
graph number  4.) 

Q.  And  were  the  other  cars  abont  as  they  are  shown  on  these  pic- 
tures? A.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  the  next  one  back  of  it,  number  81. 
(Referring  to  photograph  showing  a  full  side  view  of  81.) 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  that  portion  of  the  wreck  appeared  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  That  is  the  next  one,  number  82,  and  that  is  the  smoker  there 
turned  bottom  up. 

Q.  In  taking  away  the  wreck,  what  have  you  found  that  was  of 
interest  as  throwing  light  on  the  cause  or  nature  of  the  accident?  A. 
When  I  went  down  below  I  looked  for  the  casting  (angle-block). 
I  knew  that  that  was  the  vital  casting  in  that  bridge.  I  found  that, 
with  the  floor  beam  that  belonged  to  it,  lying  right  down  on  the  ground 
pretty  near  where  the  casting  was.  Then  I  looked  for  the  location  of 
this  top  chord  and  this  end  post,  and  when  I  found  that,  I  made  up 
my  mind  that  that  was  what  struck  the  blow  that  threw  it  in  the 
position  where  it  was. 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  wreck  did  you  find  that  angle-block?  Did 
3'ou  find  it  on  the  north  side  of  the  wreck?  A.  No,  sir  ;  it  was  on  the 
other  side,  the  south  side. 

Q.  And  how  near  directly  under  the  position  in  which  it  stood  in 
the  bridge?     A.    About  directly  under  it,  ten  feet  south. 

Q.  About  ten  feet  southerly,  on  a  vertical  line  from  the  position  in 
which  it  was?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  }*ou  examine  that  carefully  to  see  where  it  was  exactly, 
with  reference  to  its  original  position  ?  A.  Yes,  I  did.  I  could  point 
out  the  position  now. 

Q.  You  are  sure  it  was  ten  feet  southerly?  A.  About  ten  feet ;  I 
did  not  measure  it. 

Q.    I  mean  southerly  rather  than  northerly?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Away  from  Boston?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

(Witness  indicated  on  Mr.  Philbrick's  plan  where  he  found  the 
angle-block,  and  the  spot  was  marked  "  X.") 

Q.  How  early  in  the  morning  did  you  discover  that  angle-block? 
A.  I  should  say  it  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  half-past  eight.  That 
was  the  first  thing  I  thought  of  and  one  of  the  first  things  that  I  saw 
when  I  got  down  below. 

Q.  You  looked  for  it  immediately,  and  you  found  it  about  half-past 
eight?     A.    I  think  about  that  time,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  its  condition?  A.  It  la\T  on  the  ground  pretty  near 
right  side  up,  with  one  corner  torn  off  as  if  it  was  struck  a  blow  that 
knocked  it  out  of  position  in  the  truss. 

Q.  How  much  of  it  was  torn  off?  A.  I  think  there  were  about  two 
inches  down  and  up  and  six  iuches  long  ecraped  right  off  of  the  casting. 


222  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Was  it  a  dent,  or  scraped  off,  should  3*011  say  ?  A.  Scraped  off. 
It  looked  as  if  another  piece  of  iron  had  struck  it  right  there  and 
scraped  it  right  off.     It  was  a  rough,  not  a  smooth  cut. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  hreak  on  that  block  ?  A.  The  lower  part  of 
it,  the  thin  part  of  the  casting,  the  casing  that  covered  these  hanger 
bolts,  that  was  broken  off  some,  where  the  small  bolts  went  through 
it  that  held  the  lateral  rods.     They  were  broken  out  in  places. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  hangers?  A.  I  saw  two  pieces 
hanging  to  that  pin  inside  of  that  casting.  It  was  not  a  perfect  weld. 
It  was  a  new  break,  part  of  it. 

Q.  You  are  speaking  now  of  the  part  that  remained  in  the  upper 
casting?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  other  portion  of  the  angle-block?  A.  I  did 
not,  at  the  time.  I  was  occupied  with  something  else.  I  saw  the 
end  of  the  floor  beam,  but  I  never  saw  those  hangers  or  looked  for 
them.  After  I  saw  that  mark  on  the  casting,  I  didn't  think  about  the 
hangers  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  break  on  the  hangers  at  that  time? 
A.  Not  the  first  time  ;  I  didn't.  After  my  brother  came  I  took  him 
down  and  showed  him  the  casting  there,  and  we  both  examined  that 
and  found  a  place  that  looked  as  if  it  was  an  imperfect  weld. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  examine  the  break  on  the  hanger?  A.  I 
think  it  was  somewhere  about  ten  o'clock,  —  oh,  the  first  time  was 
about  half-past  eight,  at  the  time  I  first  saw  the  casting. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  break  at  that  time?  A.  I  looked  at  it 
then  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  did  you  examine  it?     A.    I  merely  looked  at  it. 

Q.  Was  it  easy  to  look  at  it  at  that  time?  A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was 
down  under  the  casting.  I  had  to  bend  over  the  casting  and  get  down 
close  to  the  ground  to  see  it. 

Q.  Did  you  have  to  lie  down  on  the  casting  and  look  over  that  to 
see  it?  A.  Yes,  I  did.  The  ends  were  down  very  near  close  to  the 
ground. 

Q.  At  that  time  how  much  were  the}'  rusted?  A.  I  could  not  say 
whether  it  was  rust  or  red  paint  that  was  on  the  end  of  them  ;  but,  I 
think,  if  I  can  recollect  right,  that  it  was  pretty  near  half  of  them  in 
the  break. 

Q.  The  edge  -of  them?  A.  The  edge  of  them,  if  I  remember 
right ;  one  a  little  more  than  the  other. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  the  floor  beam,  and  in  what  condition  did 
you  find  it,  —  I  mean  the  floor  beam  one  end  of  which  was  supported 
by  these  hangers  and  the  other  by  the  abutment  ?  A.  I  found  one 
end  of  it  on  the  ground  where  the  hangers  were,  and  the  other  end  up 
against  the  wall. 


APPENDIX.  223 

Q.  What  was  its  condition?  A.  It  was  bent  some,  and  the  rods 
were  bent;  bnt  the  truss  was  complete,  only  the  rods  bent.  The 
truss  was  all  complete. 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  truss  now?  A.  I  mean  the  truss 
of  the  floor  beams.     They  all  had  small  trusses  under  them. 

Q.  I  was  talking  about  the  beam  which  ran  from  these  hangers 
across  to  the  abutment?     A.    That  is  the  one  I  mean,  sir. 

Q.  The  beam  itself  was  in  what  condition?  A.  It  was  bent  some, 
bnt  these  rods  in  here  were  all  in.     The  beam  itself  was  bent. 

Q.    It  was  not  broken?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  The  southerly  end  of  that  was  where?  A.  Leaning  against 
the  abutment. 

Q.    How  near  to  its  original  position?     A.    Very  near. 

Q.  How  about  the  stringer  that  ran  from  the  abutment  to  this  floor 
beam?  A.  It  lay  right  directly  nearly  vertical  under  its  position  in 
the  bridge. 

Q.  In  what  condition  was  that?  A.  That  was  badly  bent;  the 
rods  were  not  broken.  In  fact,  I  may  say  that  none  of  the  trusses 
were  broken,  only  badly  bent. 

Q.  How  about  the  beam  which  operated  as  a  vertical  support  a 
short  distance  from  the  abutment  (referring  to  the  upright  post  at  the 
north  end  of  the  truss),  was  that  bent?  A.  No,  sir;  it  was  not 
bent. 

Q.   Not  bent  nor  broken  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  does  that  angle-block  weigh?  A.  About  four  or 
five  hundred  pounds. 

Q.    Where  is  it?    A.    Out  at  the  shop. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  in  the  other  portions  of  the  iron  work  of 
the  bridge  which  suggested  to  your  mind  the  cause  of  the  accident? 
A.    No,  sir ;  I  did  not  find  anything. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  further  or  southerly  truss?  A. 
The  further  truss  was  bent  right  down  from  the  centre  down  into  the 
street. 

Q.  How  do  you  mean  bent?  A.  I  mean  the  whole  middle  of  it 
was  pulled  right  in  and  sprung  right  down  ;  pulled  sideways  towards 
this  main  truss. 

Q.  Was  the  top  chord  bent  or  broken?  A.  Yes,  sir;  bent. 
There  was  only  one  joint  in  it  that  was  broken.  There  were  bolts 
riveted  at  that  bend  that  we  had  to  cut  to  disconnect  the  truss. 
There  was  only  one  joint  that  was  broken. 

Q.  Where  was  that?  A.  That  was  about  four  panels  back  from 
the  north  end  of  the  truss,  forming  part  of  the  top  chord. 

Q.  Was  it  wholly  broken?  A.  No,  sir  ;  not  wholly.  We  had  to 
cut  the  rivets  to  get  it  apart  entirely. 


224         '         BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  truss  went  clown  as  a  whole,  did  it,  bending  but  not  break- 
ing?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  bending  towards  the  north  end?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  how  about  the  uprights?  A.  The}' all  lay  on  the  ground, 
almost  every  one  of  them  bent  through  the  centre  where  the  rods  run 
through.     Those  were  eight-inch  I  beams. 

Q.  Were  they  also  bent  but  not  broken?  A.  They  were  bent  but 
not  broken. 

Q.  Was  any  one  of  them  broken?  A.  I  have  not  found  any 
broken  ;  haven't  seen  any.  The  foot  block  of  the  Pratt  truss  rested 
up  against  the  abutment. 

Q.  To  return  to  the  north  truss  again.  How  about  the  southerly 
members  of  the  north  truss;  these  two  compression  members?  A. 
The  top  member  lay  in  the  street,  part  of  it ;  that  was  in  two  pieces. 
The  first  part,  the  north  end  of  it,  lay  on  the  street  partly  under  this 
No.  87  car,  the  end  of  it  crushed  where  that  long  chord  and  the 
weight  of  the  car  crushed  it,  and  the  southerly  piece  lay  over  on  the 
roadside,  while  one  end  rested  on  the  wall  and  the  other  on  the  street. 

Q.  Then  the  upright,  the  end  post?  A.  That  lay  over  the  stone 
wall. 

Q.    Lay  in  the  field?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  end  post  broken?  A.  No,  sir.  No  members  of  the 
chord  were  broken,  only  this  end  of  the  northerly  piece  was  crushed. 
(Referring  to  the  north  end  of  the  upper  chord.) 

Q.  How  did  the  top  compression  member  break  in  two  as  you  have 
described?  A.  I  should  say  that  that  casting  was  struck  and  knocked 
right  out,  and  there  were  only  the  little  wrought-iron  lugs  inside  that 
kept  it  in  place  when  they  put  it  together.  The  compression  held  it 
together,  and  when  that  blow  came  against  the  casting,  the  moment  it 
started,  this  piece  came  down  in  the  street,  and  that  coming  down 
threw  the  other  pieces  in  the  position  they  were  outside  the  car. 

Q.  When  that  block  was  started,  as  you  have  described,  what  was 
the  etfect  here?     A.   It  disconnected  that. 

Q.  At  the  middle  of  the  top  compression  member  there  was  a  block 
similar  to  that  at  the  north  end?     A.    Yres,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  going  up,  what  was  the  condition  of  the  wood  work  of  the 
bridge?  In  the  first  place,  what  was  the  construction  of  the  bridge 
on  top  of  this  stringer?  A.  There  was  a  piece  of  eight-inch  hard 
pine  bolted  to  the  stringer. 

Q.  A  piece  of  eight-inch  hard  pine  run  on  top  of  the  stringer? 
A.   On  top  of  the  stringer,  and  the  sleepers  run  on  top  of  that. 

Q.    At  right  angles?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  at  right  angles. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  this  piece  of  eight-inch  hard  pine 
and  of  the  sleepers?     A.    They  were  all  bolted  to  the  stringers  as 


APPENDIX.  225 

the}-  laid  on  the  grouml.  This  one  out  here  was  broken  and  a  piece 
of  it  was  gone  at  the  northerly  end.  (Referring  to  sleeper  on  top  of 
the  stringer  of  the  west  rail  at  the  northerly  end  of  the  track.)  As 
I  say,  a  piece  of  that  was  broken  off.  A  part  of  it  —  just  how  much 
I  cannot  say,  about  two-thirds,  I  should  say  —  was  still  bolted  to  the 
stringer.  I  c  uld  not  say  which  end  of  that  truss  that  piece  was  gone 
from  ;  I  do  not  remember  now. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  kind  of  a  break  that  was?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  How  about  the  ties?  A.  That  fender  timber  on  top  of  the  tics 
I  found  flown  in  the  street  'under  everything.  The  ties  I  coidd  not 
find  anything  of,  only  pieces.  The  other  ends  of  these  were  splintered 
and  scattered  about  down  in  the  street. 

Q.  The  westerly  end  of  the  ties  at  the  northerly  end  of  the  bridge 
were  in  what  condition?     A.    Kindling  wood. 

Q.  And  the  other  ends  of  those  same  ties?  A.  They  show  marks 
of  derailment.     They  are  badly  cut  up  and  broken  into  pieces. 

Q.  Where  were  those  found?  A.  Down  under  this  pile  of  stuff 
here,  and  down  in  back  of  the  wreck. 

Q.  Were  they  torn  from  their  positions  on  the  timber  you  have 
spoken  of,  or  were  they  in  position?  A.  They  were  scattered  all 
round  there. 

Q.  How  about  the  ties  on  the  southerly  two-thirds  of  the  bridge  ? 
A.  I  found  them  most  all  perfect,  those  that  went  over  the  truss.  80 
far  as  I  found  any,  I  could  not  find  any  wheel-marks  on  them.  They 
seemed  to  be  perfect.  Those  at  the  southerly  end  were  all  perfect 
and  all  right.  The  rails  were  still  spiked  to  them,  and  they  hung  to 
the  rails. 

Q.  Now,  about  the  rails  themselves,  beginning  at  the  southerly 
end?  A.  There  were  three  sixty-foot  rails  in  length,  and  two  of  them 
were  still  connected  with  the  sleepers  and  remained  on  the  ground. 

Q.  Beginning  at  the  southerly  end  of  the  bridge,  the  first  rail  of 
sixty  fret  lapped  from  the  abutment  on  to  the  bridge,  did  it  not?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  what  condition  was  that  rail?  A.  It  is  shown  in  the 
picture,  spiked  down,  bent  vertically,  but  not  sideways. 

Q.  Now,  the  second  set  of  rails  extending  from  the  end  of  those 
first  rails  nearly  over  to  the  joint  block  where  the  hangers  gave  way? 
A.    The  ends  of  those  rails  came  out  a  little  under  the  sixth  car. 

Q.  They  were  the  middle  rails  of  the  bridge,  were  they  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Were  they  on  the  sleepers,  or  were  the}' torn  from  the  sleepers? 
A.  The  middle  rails  were  off  from  the  sleepers  ;  the  sleepers  lay  in 
zigzags. 


226  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    Those  middle  rails  were  not  broken?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  the  rails  at  the  northern  end  of  the  bridge  ?  A.  The  one 
running  on  the  west  side,  the  Boston  side,  was  bent  very  bad. 

Q.    Was  any  portion  of  it  broken  off?     A.    No  break  that  I  saw. 

Q.  Which  way  was  that  rail  bent,  as  you  remember  it?  A.  I 
don't  know  ;  I  cannot  tell  that. 

Q.  Think  it  over  and  tell  me  which  way  that  rail  was  bent.  Was 
it  bent  vertically,  up  and  down,  or  was  it  bent  sideways,  and  if  so,  to 
which  side?     A.    Sideways  entirely. 

Q.  And  to  which  side?  A.  I  could  not  tell  you  unless  I  saw  the 
rail.     I  could  not  explain  it  to  }rou. 

Q.  Supposing  you  are  standing  on  the  bridge  and  facing  towards 
Boston,  which  way  did  that  rail  bend,  to  the  right  or  left?  A.  It 
siarted  to  the  right,  and  then  it  went  round  to  the  left. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  that  end  was  the  south  end  of  the  rail? 
A.  I  know  by  the  inside  of  the  rail  that  the  flange  runs  against.  We 
can  tell  the  inside  or  outside  of  a  rail.  The  east  rail  on  the  north  end 
of  the  track  was  broken  in  two. 

Q.  How  was  that  bent?  A.  I  should  say  the  first  part  of  it  had 
short  crooks  in  it ;  and  the  other  part  the  Dedham  end  of  the  half, 
was  down  facing  this  abutment,  stood  right  in  the  corner  there. 

Q.  Starting  from  the  middle  of  the  truss  where  this  rail  began, 
and  coming  towards  Boston,  describe  the  condition  of  the  rail  and 
where  it  was  found.  A.  The  half  towards  Dedham  was  found  down 
on  the  street,  one  end  resting  up  against  the  stone  abutment  —  against 
the  pier  of  the  abutment.  The  bend  commenced  about  midway  on 
that  piece,  turned  right  up,  five  or  six  feet  of  it,  pretty  near  straight 
to  the  broken  end,  the  Boston  end  of  the  Dedham  half. 

Q.  Did  that  bend  start  to  the  right  or  left ;  that  is,  coming  from 
Dedham?     A.    It  started  to  the  right,  to  the  best  of  1113-  recollection. 

Q.  Was  that  as  large  a  bend  as  on  the  other  rail  ?  A.  No,  sir ; 
it  was  a  short  bend,  first  to  the  left,  and  then  the  tip  end  was  to  the 
right.  The  first  bend  was  to  the  left,  and  the  second,  a  very  short 
bend,  to  the  right,  near  to  the  break. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Were  there  Fisher-Nourse  joints?  A. 
There  was  a  Nourse  joint. 

Q.  Were  they  connected  with  the  rails?  A.  No,  sir;  they  were 
torn  out. 

Q.  Can  you  find  them  now?  A.  I  don't  know  as  I  can.  The 
chairs  were  on  there  complete  at  the  time. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  positively  if  those  three  sixty-foot  rails  were 
fastened  continuously  in  their  proper  places  with  the  Fisher-Nourse 
joints?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  know  they  were. 


APPENDIX.  227 

Q.  You  know  they  did  not  come  out  from  the  fastenings  after  the 
accident?     A.    They  were  not  out  of  the  fastenings. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  the  rail  was  fastened  there  with  the  Fisher- 
Nourse  joint?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is  this,  did  the  Fisher-Nourse  joint  break 
and  cause  this  rail  to  break?  What  do  you  think?  A.  There  was 
no  joint  near  where  the  break  was  on  the  rail.  The  rail  was  sixty 
feet  long,  and  the  Fisher-Nourse  joint  was  on  the  rail. 

Q.  If  the  Fisher-Nourse  joint  broke  at  the  southerly  end  of  the 
northerly  rail  on  a  sixty-foot  rail  and  gave  the  car  a  twist,  might  it 
not  break  the  rail  there  ?     A.    It  might. 

Q.  Can  you  get  from  the  wreck  the  Fisher-Nonrse  joints  to  match 
those  rails?  A.  I  don't  think  I  can  now.  But  there  was  no  broken 
chair  there.  I  am  very  positive  I  saw  a  chair  lying  on  the  ground 
connected  with  one  of  the  sleepers.     I  thought  of  it  at  the  time. 

Q.  You  and  I  understand  what  a  Fisher-Nourse  joint  is  ;  if  I  un- 
derstand it  right,  a  Fisher-Nourse  joint  does-  not  require  the  rail  to 
be  bored  like  an  angle  joint?  A.  No,  sir ;  it  only  requires  a  little 
corner  to  be  cut  out. 

Q.  Those  joints  are  in  perfect  order?  A.  Yes,  sir;  as  far  as  I 
saw. 

Q.  If  that  train  came  on  to  that  bridge  in  a  swaying  condition, 
could  it  have  caught  on  to  one  of  those  sixty-foot  rails  by  a  joint 
being  imperfect,  and  twisted  it  so  that  it  would  break  out  the  end  of 
the  rail?     A.   The  end  of  the  rail  would  show  that. 

Q.  Don't  you  believe  that  that  rail  could  have  broken  where  it  was 
from  the  fact  that  a  sixty-foot  rail  was  put  into  a  Fisher-Nourse  joint 
which  is  not  made  for  a  sixty-foot  rail?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  think 
that  has  anything  to  do  with  it  at  all.  I  do  not  think  it  would  make 
any  difference  at  all  in  breaking  a  rail.     I  cannot  see  how  it  could. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  This  rail  that  we  have  been  speaking 
about,  the  easterly  rail  at  the  northerly  end  of  the  bridge,  was  broken 
where,  —  how  far  off?  A.  Well,  the  piece  that  is  left,  the  Boston  end 
piece,  measures  thirty-two  feet ;  that  would  leave  it  twenty-eight  feet 
from  the  Dedham  end. 

(At  this  point  the  examination  of  Mr.  Folsom  was  suspended.) 

Adjourned  to  Saturday,  at  10.30  a.  m. 


228  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

NINTH    DAY. 

Saturday,  March  26,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  10.30. 

James  A.  Folsom — contimied. 

Q.  (B}*  the  Chairman.)  Mr.  Folsom,  you  had  spoken  3Testerday 
of  the  condition  of  some  of  the  cars,  of  the  rails,  of  the  joint-block 
and  the  hangers ;  and  I  believe  you  had  not  examined  the  hangers 
here?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  the  breaks  in  the  hangers,  do  you  say? 
A.    I  think  it  was  about  ten  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  see  both  sides  of  the  breaks  at  that  time?  A.  You 
mean  the  upper  and  lower  pieces? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  did  not  see  the  lower  pieces  ;  I  only  saw  the  upper 
pieces  that  were  fastend  to  this  block. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  those  now,  and  see  whether  they  present  the 
same  general  appearance  that  they  did  at  that  time?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
they  look  the  same  as  they  did. 

Q.   How  about  rust?     A.    Just  about  the  same. 

Q.  Are  you  accustomed  to  see  iron  broken,  iron  fractures?  A. 
Well,  somewhat,  in  regard  to  bolts,  small  rods  and  such  things  as 
that  connected  with  a  bridge. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  yourself  capable  of  judging  whether  a  break  is 
a  new  or  an  old  break  ?  A.  Well,  from  the  appearance  of  it,  yes  ;  I 
think  I  can  judge  something  about  it. 

Q.  What  portion  of  those  do  you  consider  as  new  breaks,  and 
what  portion  as  old  breaks?  A.  I  always  take  it  that  the  bright 
part  of  the  iron  shows  a  new  break. 

Q.  What  portion  of  that  ("X")  do  you  think  is  a  new  break? 
A.   That  part  there,  and  this  end  here. 

Q.  How  much  of  that  break  next  to  the  upper  eye  should  you  say 
is  new,  and  how  much  old?  A.  I  should  say  that  was  all  new  break, 
except  that  dark  point. 

Q.  How  much  of  the  surface  is  new?  A.  About  one-fifth  of  the 
surface. 

Q.   How  about  this  weld?     A.   I  should  say  that  was  not  perfect. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  break  on  this  same  piece  ?  A.  That  is  a 
new  break,  I  should  call  it. 

Q.  Now,  take  this  piece  ("  Y")  ;  how  much  of  that  is  new,  and 
how  much  of  it  is  old?  A.  I  should  say  two-thirds  of  that  was  new, 
next  to  the  eye. 


APPENDIX.  229 

Q.  How  far  down?  Which  portion  of  it  is  new?  A.  The  out- 
side portion.     The  part  next  to  the  weld  looks  new. 

Q.  And  the  other  part  farthest  from  the  eye  is  old,  in  your  opinion? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    How  about  the  weld?     A.    Imperfect. 

Q.  How  about  the  weld  at  the  junction  of  the  eye?  A.  That 
looks  perfect  to  me,  as  far  as  I  know. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  on  the  other  side  of  that?  A.  That  looks 
perfect. 

Q.  Now,  the  piece  UX"?  A.  That  has  started  about  an  inch  and 
a  half. 

Q.   Is  that  an  imperfect  weld?     A.   A  portion  of  it  is,  I  should  say- 

Q.   Have  you  ever  had  any  experience  in  iron  work?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  in  blacksmiths'  shops?  A.  Oh,  yes,  sir,  a 
great  deal. 

Q.  Ever  worked  in  a  blacksmith's  shop?  A.  No  ;  I  never  worked 
in  a  blacksmith's  shop.  I  go  over  to  the  blacksmith's  shop  and  give 
orders  for  what  iron  I  want.  I  have  seen  them  work,  and  seen  them 
make  welds,  but  as  for  doing  any  practical  work  in  a  blacksmith's 
shop  I  never  have. 

Q.  The  information  which  you  have  in  regard  to  these  breaks  is 
of  what  nature?     A.    Experience  in  seeing  breaks. 

Q.  Now,  what  other  portions  of  the  wreck  did  you  find  which 
throw  light  upon  the  cause  of  this  disaster,  if  any?  A.  Well,  I 
found  an  iron  brake  beam  which  had  the  appearance  of  being  dragged 
some  distance  upon  the  rail,  the  mark  of  a  flange  of  the  wheel,  as 
the  wheel  was  turning,  grinding  into  that.  It  was  discolored,  show- 
ing that  it  was  heated  from  the  wheel  running  against  it.  It  had  the 
appearance  of  dragging  a  long  ways  upon  the  rail.  One  end  of  the 
brake  beam  dropped  before  the  other.  The  brake  shoe  was  off,  and 
that  end  dropped  on  the  rail,  and  it  struck  against  the  wheel,  and  the 
flange  of  the  wheel  was  grinding  into  the  top  edge  of  it,  and  it  dis- 
colored it  as  if  it  had  been  heated  by  the  grinding  of  the  wheel  into 
it.  That  piece  of  iron  was  found  down  under  all  the  truck  frames 
and  wheels  that  went  down  at  the  corner  of  the  bridge.  It  was  found 
on  the  ground  under  a  pile  of  the  wreckage. 

Q.   This  was  an  iron  brake  beam  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  size  of  that?  A.  It  is  about  six  inches  wide;  I 
didn't  measure  it  exactly. 

Q.  And  how  thick?  A.  I  should  say  it  was  from  three-eighths  to 
one-half  an  inch  thickness  in  the  middle  —  the  web  of  it.  It  was  the 
same  as  the  I  beam. 

Q.  Under  what  portion  of  the  bridge  did  you  find  that,  —  near  the 
north  abutment,  or  near  the  south  abutment?     A.   On  the  opposite 


230  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

side  of  the  bridge,  —  this  "  north  "  and  "  south  "  is  what  bothers  me 
on  lhat  branch,  — under  cars  54  and  87.  It  was  under  the  wreckage 
of  those  two  cars,  where  the  most  of  the  broken  truck  frames  were 
and  wheels. 

Q.  Do  you  know  to  what  car  that  brake  beam  belonged  ?  A.  From 
Mr.  Richards'  statement,  I  should  say  it  belonged  to  No.  54.  That 
was  the  fifth  car  in  the  train. 

Q.  What  do  you  know  about  it  yourself?  A.  That  is  all  I  know 
about  it ;  I  have  no  knowledge  whatever  further  than  that.  I  could 
not  trace  it  out,  because  the  truck  frames  were  all  broken  to  pieces, 

—  the  truck  frames  that  laid  on  top  of  it.  I  find  that  there  were  two 
sets  of  trucks  that  were  not  broken  that  had  iron  brake  beams.  There 
were  two  cars,  as  I  understand,  in  the  train  that  had  iron  brake  beams. 
Under  them  I  found  the  trucks  of  one  car  complete,  with  brake  beams 
complete  in  them.  The  other  trucks  were  all  broken  up  under  the 
wreckage  of  these  cars. 

Q.  I  don't  understand  about  the  other  iron  brake  beams,  —  what 
was  their  condition  ?  A.  Those  trucks,  as  nigh  as  I  can  trace  out,  had 
fallen  under  the  second  car,  No.  18.     The  trucks  that  were  complete 

—  with  I  beams  complete  —  were  up  on  top  of  the  banking.  Those 
were  the  first  things  that  were  loaded  and  sent  to  the  shop.  Those, 
as  I  understood,  had  iron  beams  all  complete  on  them.  That  is,  there 
are  two  sets  of  trucks  at  the  shop  now  with  iron  brake  beams  com- 
plete, and,  as  I  understand  it,  those  trucks  belonged  under  No.  18 
car,  —  the  second  car. 

Q.  You  found  one  iron  brake  beam  on  the  ground  ;  did  you  find 
the  other  one  also?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  found  the  other  one. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  that?  A.  The  other  was  not  dam- 
aged any,  only  it  was  broken  from  the  truck ;  the  shoes  were  on  it 
complete. 

Q.  Was  there  any  appearance  on  this  first  brake  beam  which  you 
have  described  which  was  inconsistent  with  its  having  been  crushed  or 
dented  by  the  cars  falling  upon  it?  A.  It  could  not  have  been  done, 
sir ;  it  is  impossible  that  it  could  have  been  bent  in  the  shape  it  was. 
Those  cars  could  not  have  got  on  it  unless  it  fell  on  the  rail  and  was 
dragged  some  distance.  Those  two  marks  of  the  flange  of  the  wheel 
were  enough  to  convince  me  that  it  had  dropped  on  the  earth  and  been 
dragged  for  some  distance  before  the  other  hanger  let  go  to  drop  it. 

Q.  How  heav}-  is  this  brake  beam  ?  A.  Well,  two  men  had  to 
carry  it.  It  is  in  Mr.  Wheeler's  office  at  the  depot,  or  was  yesterday. 
I  sent  it  right  in  to  Boston. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  portion  of  that  brake  that  throws  any  light 
upon  the  question?  A.  One  of  my  men,  in  walking  up  the  track, 
about  250  feet  from  the  bridge,  found  a  piece  of  casting  that  held  up 


APPENDIX.  231 

a  hanger  that  held  up  a  brake  beam,  —  half  of  a  casting,  only  broken  ; 
and  he  said  that  he  traced  all  the  way  from  there  down  to  the  bridge 
a  mark  on  the  rail,  as  if  something  had  been  drawn  on  the  rail. 

Q.  What  man  was  that?  A.  One  of  the  men  that  I  had  to  work 
out  there;  I  think  his  name  was  Fred.  Hancock.  The  next  morning 
when  he  told  me  that,  it  had  been  snowing  and  I  could  not  see  it  on 
the  rail  myself.  Mr.  D.  L.  Davis,  the  road  master  on  the  main  line, 
was  up  there  that  morning,  and  he  said  he  could  trace  out  distinctly 
where  something  had  dragged  on  the  rail,  and  marked  the  rail  all  the 
way  down  to  the  bridge. 

Q.  Where  does  Mr.  D.  L.  Davis  live?  A.  He  lives  at  Readvillc. 
He  is  road  master  on  the  main  line  from  Boston  to  Canton. 

Q.  Did  you  yourself  see  any  marks  on  the  ties,  indicating  where 
this  brake  beam  may  have  struck  them?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Either  on  the  bridge  itself,  or  on  the  track  south  of  the  bridge? 
A.   No,  sir. 

Q.    Did  you  look  for  marks  on  the  ties  on  the  bridge?     A.    I  did. 
Q.    What  else  did  you  find  which  seemed  to  you  to  throw  any  light 
upon  the  question?     A.    I  don't  think  I  found  anything  else  particu- 
larly. 

Q.  Anything  that  you  thought  might  have  been  the  cause  of  the 
accident,  or  that  you  could  not  understand  how  it  did  occur?  A. 
Of  course  I  formed  an  opinion  how  the  whole  thing  happened,  but  it 
is  mere  theory. 

Q.  I  mean,  was  there-  any  other  piece  of  iron  or  woodwork  that 
threw  any  light  upon  the  question  ?  A.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not  seen 
anything. 

Q.  What  is  your  theory  in  regard  to  the  matter?  A.  My  theory 
is  that  the  truck  frames  under  the  first  car  were  the  first  ones  to  he 
derailed.  That  made  trouble  under  the  second  car,  and  that  commu- 
nicated to  the  third,  knocked  the  wheels  out  from  under  the  third, 
and  that  caused  the  wreckage  of  the  truck  frames  on  this  end  of  the 
bridge. 

Q.  Explain  that  a  little  more  fully.  The  truck  frames  of  the  first 
car  were  first  derailed.  What  was  the  cause  of  the  derailment? 
Have  you  any  idea?  A.  That  I  can't  say.  I  merely  think  this  from 
the  position  of  the  cars,  the  position  of  the  wreckage,  and  the  iron 
work  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Then  how  did  that  cause  trouble?  A.  The  trucks  of  the  second 
car,  by  getting  crossways  of  the  ties,  or  in  between  the  ties,  knocked 
the  truck  frames  out  from  under  the  other  cars,  until,  as  1  think,  the 
sixth  car  met  the  wreckage  on  those  sleepers  at  the  end  of  the  bridge, 
and  the  sixth  car  fell.  I  contend  that  the  bridge  stood  up  until  live 
cars  passed  over  it.     It  looks  to  me  that  when  this  wreckage  of  the 


232  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

truck  frames  occurred  amongst  those  sleepers  on  the  end  of  the  bridge 
there,  those  cars  were  derailed  in  front,  stopped,  and  caused  that 
telescoping  ;  and  those  two  cars  that  went  down  the  bank,  when  those 
other  cars  were  derailed  and  telescoped,  those  two  cars  shot  the  other 
way  and  went  over  the  wall.  When  the  truck  frames  were  knocked 
out  from  under  the  sixth  car,  that  came  along  and  struck  this  truss, 
and  carried  the  whole  thing  down.  I  judge  so  from  the  position  of 
the  iron  work  and  the  wreckage.  As  for  these  hangers,  they  had  to 
break. 

Q.  The  fourth  and  fifh  cars,  you  think,  got  on  to  the  Boston  side 
of  the  embankment  and  then  were  pulled  back?  A.  No;  I  think 
they  were  off  the  track  ;  they  were  derailed  before  they  struck  the 
embankment.  When  those  three  forward  cars  stopped,  the  chuck  of 
the  train  behind  shot  those  two  cars  one  way,  while  the  forward  part 
of  the  train  went  the  other  way. 

Q.    Knocked  the  fourth  and  fifth  cars  off  the  track?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Where  were  they  then?     A.    They  were  just  to  the  abutment. 

Q.  What  happened  to  them  then?  A.  As  I  sa}r,  the  stoppage  or 
chuck  of  the  rear  cars  came  against  them  and  forced  them  to  the  right, 
while  the  other  cars  went  the  other  way. 

Q.  Where  was  the  front  end  of  the  fourth  car  at  that  time?  A. 
It  was  near  the  abutment. 

Q.  Where  was  it?  A.I  should  judge  the  front  end  of  the  fourth 
car  was  very  near  the  abutment  when  it  started  ;  that  after  getting 
off  the  rail,  when  the  ends  of  those  sleepers  broke  awa}*,  that  started 
the  first  car  clown,  and  at  the  same  time  the  fifth  car  came  along  and 
went  right  over  it  and  landed  where  it  was  ;  and  the  sixth  car  came 
and  struck  the  blow  which  knocked  the  bridge  down. 

Q.  When  the  front  end  of  the  fourth  car  was  at  the  Boston  abut- 
ment, where  was  the  front  end  of  the  fifth  car?  A.  The  length  of  a 
car  behind,  about  midway  of  the  southerly  end. 

Q.  Where  was  the  fifth  car?  A.  That  would  be  nearer  the  back 
end  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  And  the  front  end  of  the  sixth  car  would  be  just  coming  on  the 
bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  these  cars  started  over  the  corner  of  the  abutment,  the 
momentum  of  the  train  brought  them  ahead,  so  as  to  bring  the  seventh 
car  where  it  fell,  so  as  to  just  clear  the  abutment  on  the  Dedham  end  ; 
then  the  fourth  car  went  off  the  bridge  to  the  left,  as  I  understand 
it,  without  bringing  down  the  bridge,  in  your  opinion?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  it  remained  for  the  sixth  car  to  break  down  the  bridge? 
A.  That  is  what  I  think.  The  sixth  car  struck  the  blow  in  going 
down  that  demolished  that  truss. 


APPENDIX.  233 

Q.  What  do  you  consider  was  the  condition  of  the  track  between 
the  top  of  the  truss  —  the  northerly  member  of  the  truss — and  the 
abutment  at  that  time?  A.  I  should  judge  that  that  was  bent  some- 
what, —  must  have  been. 

Q.  How  do  you  account,  under  your  theory,  if  the  bridge  had  not 
given  way,  for  the  roof  of  the  fourth  car  being  on  the  abutment? 
A.  When  that  car  went  off,  as  I  sa}*,  those  sleepers  on  that  side 
broke  down  and  let  that  car  straight  down.  When  it  struck  the  abut- 
ment, it  struck  with  force  enough  to  break  the  whole  side  in,  and 
throw  the  whole  top  of  that  car  on  to  the  embankment  and  left  it. 

Q.  How  did  it  strike  the  abutment,  —  sideways,  or  in  the  line  of  the 
track  ?  A.  On  one  side  ;  it  knocked  off  one  side,  and  it  struck  the 
pier  or  abutment. 

Q.  If  it  had  struck  the  abutment  that  way,  where  would  the  roof 
of  the  car  have  been  thrown,  —  on  what  portion  of  the  abutment? 
A.  If  the  front  corner  of  the  car  was  the  first  to  strike  the  abutment, 
it  looks  to  me  that  that  would  have  thrown  the  top  where  it  was 
found,  nearly  on  the  track. 

Q.  And  to  the  right  or  left  of  the  track?  A.  To  the  right  of  the 
place  in  the  abutment  where  it  struck. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  think  that  this  brake  beam  which  you  have 
spoken  of  had  anything  to  do  with  the  disaster?  A.  I  don't  think  it 
did  ;  I  can't  think  so  now. 

Q.  That  being  on  the  fifth  car,  and  the  original  trouble  having 
been  caused  by  the  first  car  running  off  the  track,  how  do  you  account 
for  the  appearance  of  the  brake  beam?  A.  Well,  I  think  that  was 
something  that  happened  before  the  final  catastrophe. 

Q.  You  mean  that  was  dragging  at  the  time?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
think  so.  I  think  it  must  have  been  dragged  some  distance  before  it 
struck  the  bridge,  to  be  found  in  the  location  where  it  was. 

Q.  Ma}'  it  not  have  dragged  six  months  ago  somewhere,  and  then 
have  been  put  up  again?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  don't  think  that  could  have 
been  done  by  the  running  of  the  car  without  breaking  a  rail. 

Q.  No;  but  dragged,  and  then  the  car  stopped?  A.  The  marks 
were  too  new  on  it. 

Q.  How  do  you  account  for  the  front  car  being  derailed  when  it  left 
the  track,  — what  caused  the  derailment?  A.  I  can't  say,  unless  the 
brakes  were  put  on.  The  car  being  a  new  car,  just  out  of  the  shop, 
it  was  pretty  stiff;  it  had  been  worked  over,  the  brakes  were  all  put 
in  order ;  and  I  have  seen  brake  beams  rise  up  when  the  air-brake  is 
put  on  suddenly.  I  think  it  is  possible  that  that  might  have  had 
something  to  do  with  it.  The  engineer  might  find  he  was  going  rather 
fast  when  he  was  going  over  the  bridge,  and  put  bis  band  down  and 
put  on   the  air-brake,  not    thinking    much   of  what   he  was   doing, 


234  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

whereas  when  he  got  over  the  bridge  he  let  go  of  the  brake.     That  is 
the  only  way  I  can  account  for  the  derailment  of  that  car. 

Q.  Let  go  of  the  brake  when  he  got  over  the  bridge,  did  you  say? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  as  the}r  do  sometimes.  I  have  seen  them  put  on  the 
brake  before  they  got  to  the  bridge,  and  when  they  got  over  let  go 
the  brake. 

Q.  On  that  bridge?  A.  Yes,  sir;  slack  up  a  little  and  let  the 
brake  off.     The  brakes  were  in  operation  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  When  have  you  seen  that  done  ?  A.  I  have  seen  it  done  at 
different  times  when  I  have  been  riding  over  the  bridge. 

Q.    With  what  engineers?     A.    I  couldn't  say  certain  what  ones. 

Q.  On  what  trains?  What  time?  A.  I  couldn't  tell  you  the  time 
certain,  because  I  ride  on  so  many  different  trains. 

Q.  Can  you  recall  any  one  instance  when  it  was  done?  A.  I  have 
rode  behind  this  same  engineer  when  he  has  put  on  the  brake  and  let 
it  off  before  he  got  to  the  bridge. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  ridden  behind  him  when  he  put  on  the  brakes 
and  kept  them  on  while  going  over  the  bridge?  A.  Not  to  my 
recollection,  in  particular.  I  can't  recollect  which  one  it  was.  I  know 
I  always  noticed  it,  because  when  going  over  that  bridge,  as  a  good 
many  have  told  me,  they  have  thought  what  a  place  that  would  be  to 
be  derailed,  —  either  there  or  on  the  banking  after  leaving  the  bridge. 
I  have  always  noticed  the  trains  when  they  struck  that  curve  after 
leaving  the  bridge. 

Q.  But  some  engineers  on  that  road,  you  feel  confident,  have  left 
the  brakes  on  when  they  have  been  going  over  that  bridge?  A.  Yes, 
sir ;  that  is,  they  didn't  let  go  their  brake. 

Q.  Has  that  been  done,  to  your  knowledge,  within  the  past  year? 
A.  I  think  it  has,  but  I  can't  place  the  time  exactly.  I  have  been 
over  that  bridge  so  many  times  that  I  can't  place  the  time. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  putting  the  brakes  on,  was  it 
j'our  idea  that  the  engineer  of  this  train  put  the  brakes  on  just  as  he 
left  the  bridge,  and  that  that  threw  the  first  car  off?  A.  Just  as  he 
was  veiy  near  the  abutment.  To  support  that  theory,  he  must  have 
applied  the  brakes  then. 

Q.  When  he  was  near  the  Boston  abutment?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Would  that  have  been  in  the  ordinary  course  for  him  to  have 
applied  the  brakes  at  that  point?  What  would  have  been  his  object 
in  that?  A.  As  I  say,  he  might  have  found  that  he  was  running  a 
little  fast  when  he  came  to  that  place  and  thought  that  he  would  slack 
up,  as  they  always  do  when  they  pass  that  bridge,  because  there  is  a 
very  sharp  down  grade  coming  towards  Forest  Hills.  I  don't  recol- 
lect now  of  their  ever  working  steam  over  the  bridge. 

Q.   If  he  were  working  steam  would  he   be  likely  to  apply  the 


APPENDIX.  235 

brakes  ?     A.    Not  while  he  was  working  steam  ;   I  shouldn't  think  he 
would. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  did  apply  the 
brake  at  the  Boston  end  of  the  bridge?     A.    It  looks  so  to  me. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  the  explanation  of  throwing  the  train  off  the 
track?  A.  I  can't  think  of  anything  else  to  take  those  forward 
trucks  off  of  the  forward  car. 

Q.  Unless  it  is  a  breaking  down  of  the  bridge?  A.  Yes.  I  don't 
imagine  that  for  one  moment.  I  don't  imagine  the  bridge  broke 
down  until  it  was  forced  down.  I  can't,  knowing  the  construction  of 
the  bridge  and  everything,  and  seeing  the  wreckage  as  it  laid,  —  the 
position  of  everything. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Tell  ns  what  you  know  about  the  construc- 
tion of  the  bridge.  You  say  you  can't  imagine  that  the  bridge  broke 
down  until  it  was  forced  down,  because  you  know  the  construction  of 
the  bridge.  Did  you  know  every  piece  of  iron  that  was  put  into  it? 
A.  I  was  there  when  it  was  put  together.  Of  course  there  were  some 
parts  I  can't  remember  exactly ;  but  I  have  crawled  through  that 
bridge  a  good  many  times  and  examined  every  part  of  it,  and  been 
under  it  when  trains  have  gone  over  it  a  good  many  times.  I  did  not 
believe  for  a  moment  when  I  started  from  Boston  to  go  out  there  that 
the  bridge  broke  down,  and  when  I  got  out  there  and  saw  that  block 
I  decided  at  once  that  the  blow  on  that  block  broke  the  bridge  down. 
Then  I  took  notice  of  the  bottom  members  of  the  truss  and  the  posi- 
tion in  which  they  lay,  and  that  confirmed  me  in  my  belief  that  those 
cars  were  derailed  at  the  Boston  end  of  the  bridge  and  that  a  car 
struck  that  block  a  twisting  blow,  and  that  twisting  blow,  by  striking 
that  corner,  broke  the  casting  just  where  I  found  it,  and  the  other 
members  of  the  top  part  of  that  truss  would  lie  in  that  position  natu- 
rally by  striking  a  blow  at  the  corner  of  that  casting.  Under  the 
casting  was  a  small  1  beam.  That  beam  laid  over  near  the  wall,  and 
it  was  only  slightly  bent  at  one  end.  Now,  if  that  casting  got  that 
blow  on  that  corner  that  tore  it  out,  it  would  naturally  bend  that  I 
beam  where  it  was  bent  and  throw  it  out  where  it  was  found.  And 
certainly  those  hangers  didn't  let  go  and  break  the  bridge  down.  The 
bridge  did  not  start  there.  In  the  first  place,  if  those  hangers  had  let 
go  first  and  allowed  that  floor  beam  to  drop,  the  truss  would  not  have 
been  in  the  position  that  it  laid  on  the  ground. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Explain  why  not.  A.  Because  the  bot- 
tom chord  of  this  truss  was  all  complete ;  nothing  broken  about  it. 
It  lay  on  the  ground,  swung  towards  the  Providence  side  of  the  bridge, 
I  call  it,  —  the  south  side.  The  centre  of  it  was  swung  out,  just  as  it 
should  be  according  to  my  theory,  with  the  position  in  which  the  sixth 
car  laid.     I  can  show  you  the  position  of  that  chord  on  the  other  plan 


236  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

as  it  la}-  under  that  car.  (The  witness  stated  that  the  blue-pencil 
marks  on  the  plan  referred  to  indicated  very  nearly  the  position  of 
that  lower  chord.) 

Q.  The  second  member  of  the  top  chord  la}^  alongside  of  the  stone 
wall  of  the  street?  A.  The  end  post  on  the  Dedham  end  hay  in  the 
field  on  the  north  side  of  the  wall.  When  the  fourth  or  fifth  car  left 
the  track  and  when  the  sixth  car  struck  the  bridge,  the  bridge  started  ; 
the  seventh  car  was  stopped  at  that  time,  while  the  two  rear  cars, 
bringing  up  against  that,  threw  them  over  on  to  the  floor  beams  on 
the  other  side,  which  accounts  for  the  position  of  that  truss, — the 
Pratt  truss. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  Pratt  truss?  A.  Bent  right 
round  in  the  centre,  exactly  as  if  a  heavy  blow  had  struck  those 
two  floor  beams  and  knocked  them  right  over  at  the  same  time  that 
this  truss  was  struck  and  pulled  towards  the  stone  wall. 

Q.  Was  the  Parker  truss  pulled  in  or  thrown  out?  A.  Pulled  in 
towards  the  centre,  while  the  bottom  chord  was  knocked  out  towards 
the  south  a  little  more  than  the  top  chord,  of  course.  It  looks  to  me 
as  if,  if  those  hangers  had  been  perfect,  they  would  have  to  break 
when  that  blow  was  struck  that  started  that  casting,  —  twisted  it  off. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Folsom,  I  want  to  get  your  idea  clearly  in  my  mind. 
You  think,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  first  car  was  thrown  from  the 
track  by  the  application  of  the  brakes,  or  something  which  you  do 
not  understand,  —  probabty  by  the  application  of  the  brakes?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  the  next  two  cars  followed  it  without  the  brakes  giving 
way?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  the  trucks  of  the  third  car,  which  was  derailed  on  the 
bridge,  —  how  was  it?  A.  The  trucks  of  the  third  car,  I  take  it,  were 
struck  and  derailed  by  the  trucks  of  the  second  car.  The  trucks  of 
the  third  car  went  down  with  the  wreckage,  while  the  trucks  of  the 
second  car  remained  on  the  top  of  the  abutment. 

Q.  The  trucks  of  the  second  car  got  in  the  way  of  the  trucks  of 
the  third  car?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where?  A.  On  the  bridge  next  to  the  abutment,  and  the  third 
car  came  on  to  the  abutment. 

Q.  How,  then,  did  the  trucks  of  the  third  car  drop  into  the  street? 
A.  They  went  back  under  the  fourth  car  and  demolished  the  ti'ucks 
of  that.  They  were  all  snarled  up  in  those  sleepers  that  I  spoke  of. 
Those  second  car  trucks  were  right  at  the  edge  of  the  abutment. 

Q.  The  trucks  of  the  second  car  you  found  at  the  edge  of  the  abut- 
ment?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.   On  top  of  the  abutment?     A.   Yes,  sir  ;  on  the  ground. 

Q.    Back  of  the  third  car?     A.    Yes,  sir.     They  were  demolishing 


APPENDIX.  237 

the  third  car  when  I  got  there.  Whether  they  moved  the  trucks  from 
the  position  in  which  they  landed  I  can't  say,  but  there  is  where  they 
loaded  thern  from,  right  on  the  edge  of  the  abutment. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  where  they  were  at  ten  o'clock. 
A.    They  might  have  moved  them  when  they  demolished  that  car. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  them  there  on  the  edge  of  the  abut- 
ment? A.  When  I  went  down  the  bank.  That  is,  I  noticed  some 
trucks  up  there,  but  I  didn't  pay  particular  attention  to  those  trucks, 
for  I  was  going  down  the  bank  in  a  hurry  at  the  first  of  it.  I  didn't 
pay  much  attention  to  the  work  that  was  going  on  up  above  ;  I  started 
down  below.  I  remember  of  seeing  trucks,  but  I  can't  locate  them 
exactly.  They  were  near  the  abutment,  as  nigh  as  I  can  remember, 
and  the  men  loaded  them  on  a  derrick  car  while  I  was  down  below. 

Q.  When  did  they  load  them?  A.  After  Mr.  Richards  got  out  of 
the  way  with  the  second  car  so  that  the}-  could  get  up  on  that  track. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  day  was  that?  A.  I  think  about  dinner 
time  ;  somewheres  aloug  about  noon  time.  I  am  a  little  confused  in 
regard  to  the  time  of  loading  them.  I  won't  say  certain  what  time  it 
was  they  loaded  them.  I  know  I  missed  those  trucks  after  a  while, 
and  the  man  who  had  charge  of  that  derrick  car  said  that  he  loaded 
them  and  they  went  into  Boston  either  Monday  night  or  the  next 
morning  and  went  to  the  shop.     I  think  it  was  Monday  night. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  as  to  the  position  of  those  trucks  when  you  first 
went  out  there?  A.  No,  sir;  I  can't  say  certain  about  it,  because  I 
didn't  take  particular  notice. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  3*011  did  see  them  again  until  you  saw  them 
loaded  on  the  car?     A.    I  can't  say  certain  that  I  did. 

Q.  Then  you  think  that  the  trucks  of  the  third  car  went  down  with 
some  of  those  ties  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  fourth  car  and  fifth  car  went  over  the  side  of  the 
bridge  between  the  top  of  the  compression  member  and  the  edge  of 
the  abutment?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    The  bridge  still  standing?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  it  remained  for  the  sixth  car  to  strike  the  casting  at 
the  junction  of  the  compression  members  and  carry  the  rest  of  the 
bridge  down?     A.   Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  idea  of  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  When  did  this  theory  which  you  have  just 
advanced  first  dawn  upon  }'ou?  A.  Well,  I  was  studying  on  it  all 
the  time  while  I  was  hoisting  up  the  wreck,  picking  out  the  cars,  not- 
ing the  location  of  the  iron,  etc.  Ideas  kept  coming  to  me  ;  I  put 
them  all  together,  and  I  came  to  that  conclusion  last  week. 

Q.  Have  you  told  any  of  the  officers  or  managers  of  the  railroad 
about  it?  A.  I  have  spoken  to  some  parties  about  it,  not  to  the  offi- 
cers any  more  than  to  others.     I  have  spoken  particularly  to  Mr. 


238  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Sawtell,  who  acts  as  foreman.  When  we  were  out  there,  if  I  saw  a 
point  that  looked  reasonable,  I  would  state  it  to  him,  and  if  he  saw 
an}-thing  he  would  state  it  to  me,  and  we  both  agreed. 

Q.  Did  you  see  these  links  out  there  on  the  ground?  A.  I  saw 
these  top  ones  in  the  top  casting.     I  didn't  notice  these  pieces. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  these?  A.  I  saw  the  ends  of  them  as  they 
were  down  under  the  castings  ;  just  glanced  at  them. 

Q.  Had  it  not  occurred  to  you  that  that  bridge  might  have  been 
weak?    A.    No,  sir;  never.     I  couldn't  believe  it. 

Q.  Yesterday  morning  }rou  said  in  your  evidence  here  that  when 
you  saw  that  angle  block  you  felt  that  that  was  weak?  A.  Well,  if 
you  call  that  a  weak  point  in  a  bridge  it  was  weak  there.  I  take  it 
that  such  a  blow  as  that  had  to  take  there  was  enough  to  demolish 
any  truss. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  j'ou  again,  in  the  most  serious  manner,  and 
I  want  a  positive  and  direct  answer,  when  you  first  heard  of  the 
breaking  down  of  that  bridge,  did  it  not  strike  you  that  you  had 
before  in  your  mind  felt  doubt  about  it?     A.   No,  sir  ;  never. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that?  A.  I  am  sure  of  that.  I  felt  just  as 
safe  in  riding  over  that  bridge  as  I  did  on  any  part  of  that  road. 

Q.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  about  the  floor  system  of  that  bridge. 
Was  it  up  to  standard,  such  as  it  ought  to  have  been  ?  A.  Now,  you 
ask  me  a  question  that  goes  a  little  beyond  me.  I  don't  pretend  to  be 
an  expert  in  that  matter. 

Q.  Very  true,  but  }rou  have  your  ideas  of  a  good  road-bed? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  a  good  road-bed?  A.  It  was  plenty  good  enough 
for  the  work  it  was  doing. 

Q.   Did  you  consider  the  ties  near  enough  together?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  large  enough?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Mr.  Folsom,  did  }Tou  examine  that  com- 
pression member,  the  north  post  of  the  truss?  A.  Not  particularly. 
I  noticed  that  appeared  to  be  all  perfect  except  a  little  jam  in  one 
part  of  the  iron. 

Q.  Was  it  free  from  dents,  abrasions,  etc.  ?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  for  it 
fell  clear  of  the  wreck. 

Q.    It  did  not  have  any  serious  dent  on  it?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  how  the  fourth  and  fifth  cars  could  get  down 
between  the  abutment  and  that  without  marring  it?  A.  Yes,  sir ; 
because,  when  those  cars  landed,  they  were  clear  of  the  bridge  seat 
entirely. 

Q.  Your  impression  is,  that  those  cars  could  strike  that  corner  of 
the  abutment  and  go  down  into  the  road  without  strikinsr  that  com- 


APPENDIX.  239 

pression  member,  the  north  post  of  the  truss?  A.  Yes,  sir.  They 
took  a  start  right  there  and  jumped  right  out. 
Q.  A  car  is  how  long?  A.  About  fifty  feet. 
Q.  Now,  what  I  want  to  know  is,  whether  a  car,  in  your  opinion, 
could  fall  and  come  round  that  corner,  striking  it,  and  get  between 
the  abutment  and  that  compression  member  and  not  strike  it? 
A.  The  rear  trucks  of  that  car  might  have  been  under  it  when  the 
forward  end  started,  and  when  it.  started,  it  would  run  clear  of  that 
and  shoot  the  car  right  over  it.  I  don't  pretend  to  say  that  the  cars 
all  went  through  that  gap  between  the  abutment  and  the  end  of  that 
truss.  The  fourth  car  might  have  had  the  trucks  under  one  end  when 
it  started  ;  when  it  got  this  chuck  that  I  speak  of,  that  canted  it  that 
way,  and  the  trucks  might  have  been  clear  of  that.  There  are  no 
marks  there  of  anything  striking  it,  only  that  blow  on  that  corner. 

Q.  "Where  were  the  trucks  of  the  third  car  found,  —  how  nearly  in  a 
line  with  the  road,  do  you  know  ?  A.  I  could  not  tell  which  trucks 
they  were.  All  the  other  trucks  were  down  in  this  pile  in  the  street. 
Q.  You  don't  know  whether  they  were  nearly  in  a  line  with  the 
tracks  or  not?  A.  Oh,  no,  sir;  they  were  all  mixed  up  together,  in 
all  shapes,  those  that  were  down  in  the  wreck.  There  was  no  truck 
whole. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Mr.  Folsom,  did  I  understand  3-011  right 
that  you  thought  this  brake  beam  made  marks  upon  the  axle  of  the 
truck?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  those  marks  were  on  the  axle  of  the  second  truck  ? 
A.    I  did. 

Q.  That  was  the  truck  to  which  you  referred  as  the  one  in  which 
the  brake  beam  must  have  caught,  was  it  not?  A.  No.  I  think  Mr. 
Richards  said  they  belonged  under  that  car  which  had  an  iron  brake 
beam. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  car  in  which  the  brake  beam  was  broken,  as 
you  say?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  You  said  when  you  began  to  testify  that  when  you  came  to  the 
scene  of  the  wreck  that  block  was  the  first  thing  you  thought  of,  and 
you  went  down  and  looked  for  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  was  that?  A.  Because  I  knew  the  cars  were  derailed  on 
the  bridge,  and  I  was  satisfied  that  the  bridge  couldn't  go  right  down 
from  any  breakage,  on  account  of  the  construction  of  that  top  chord  ; 
and  if  one  of  those  castings  got  a  blow,  it  would  spread  that  chord. 
That  is  why  I  looked  for  that  immediately. 

Q.  That  you  had  thought  of  before,  that  that  must  have  been  the 
way  :  that  the  car  struck  that  block  and  knocked  it  out,  and  the 
bridge  went  to  pieces?     A.    I  never  thought  of  that  block  until  I  got 


240  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

to  the  bridge.     I  knew  they  must  have  struck  that  top  chord  if  they 
had  been  derailed  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  As  I  understand  3*011,  the  fourth  and  fifth  cars  must  have  ridden 
up  over  the  side  of  the  track,  over  the  sleepers  and  over  the  left  guard, 
and  gone  over  the  side?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  If  the  passengers  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  cars  all  state  that  the}' 
felt  nothing  like  the  motion  of  a  car  over  the  sleepers,  but  merely  a 
shock  and  instantaneously  a  downward  movement,  that  would  some- 
what alter  your  opinion,  would  it  not?  A.  Not  a  bit  of  it.  That  is 
just  what  they  should  feel. 

Q.  The  cars  have  gjt  to  pass  over  the  sleepers  and  guard  in  order 
to  go  over?  A.  Yes,  sir;  but  how  long  does  it  take  to  do  that? 
They  can't  tell  that  they  are  riding  over  the  sleepers,  it  is  done  so 
quick. 

Q.  I  am  asking  3*011  if  the  statements  of  those  witnesses  are  true 
that  there  was  no  sensation  of  going  over  the  sleepers,  but  simply  a 
sinking  sensation?  A.  There  would  be  a  sinking  sensation  with 
going  over  the  sleepers  under  any  circumstances,  because  the  sleepers 
were  whole  back  on  the  other  part  of  the  bridge,  only  at  this  end  of 
the  bridge,  where  this  wreckage  occurred,  and  that  broke  the  sleepers. 
Q.  Your  idea  is  that  the  fourth  car  went  over  that  way,  isn't  it? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true  that  while  that  fourth  car  was  going  over,  the  fifth 
car  must  have  been  dragged  out  of  its  place,  and  verj*  severely  dragged, 
too?     A.   Not  necessarily. 

Q.  So  that  while  the  fourth  car  was  going  over  the  side,  the  fifth 
car,  you  think,  could  have  been  on  the  track  in  a  very  easy  position 
without  any  jolting?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achokn.)  This  broken  rail  broke  at  what  point  in 
relation  to  the  bridge  and  the  abutment?  A.  Very  nearly  opposite 
this  casting,  I  think.     I  have  not  measured. 

Q.  Was  it  broken  where  the  bridge  joined  the  abutment?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  There  was  a  floor  beam  at  the  end  that  you  spoke  of  in  your 
testimony  as  being  bent?     A.    Yes,  sir;  they  were  all  bent. 

Q.    One  opposite  this  beam?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  that  was  bent  some. 
Q.    In  what  direction,  —  up  or  down,  to  the  right  or  to  the  left? 
A.    Up,  I  think.     Yes,  up,  as  nigh  as  I  remember. 

Q.  If  a  brake  beam  was  dragging,  would  it  not  give  a  shock  to  the 
people  in  the  cars?  A.  It  would  if  it  went  over  the  wheel.  If  it  got 
on  the  sleepers  the  people  in  the  cars  would  feel  it ;  but  if  it  lay  on 
the  rail  and  was  shoved  ahead  of  the  wheel,  they  wouldn't  notice  it 
any  more  than  they  would  putting  on  the  brakes. 

Q.    Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  engineer  applied  the  brakes 


APPENDIX.  241 

the  moment  that  he  thought  anything  was  wrong?  Is  not  that  the 
first  thing  he  would  do,  naturally?  A.  Yes,  if  he  thought  anything 
was  wrong. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  brakes  were  applied  suddenly,  would  not  that  give 
an  extra  strain  to  the  bridge?  A.  Certainly  it  would,  if  the  brakes 
were  applied  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  If  when  the  engineer  first  noticed  anything  wrong  he  had  sud- 
denly applied  the  brakes,  would  not  that  have  a  tendency  to  give  a 
very  severe  shock  to  the  bridge?  A.  Certainly.  That  is  why  you 
don't  want  to  put  the  brake  on,  on  a  bridge. 

Q.  It  is  a  fact  that  brakes  have  been  applied  on  trains  going  down 
over  that  bridge,  and  the}'  are  also  applied  between  Roslindale  and 
Forest  Hills  on  that  grade,  are  they  not?  A.  The}'  are  supposed  to 
be.     It  is  according  to  the  speed. 

Q.  If  that  was  being  done  from  day  to  day  would  it  not  tend  to 
bring  a  strain  on  the  bridge  that  would  weaken  it?  A.  Well.  I 
should  say  it  would  be  a  very  bad  thing  for  the  bridge  to  do  so  ;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  fourth  car  passed  in  the  position  that  you  say  it 
did  over  the  bridge,  how  do  you  account  for  the  top  of  the  fourth  car 
being  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  track?  A.  Simply  by  the  car 
striking  the  abutment. 

Q.  Very  well ;  if  it  struck  the  abutment  on  the  left-hand  side, 
would  not  the  top  have  been  carried  over  on  the  left-band  side?  A. 
1  don't  see  how  it  would  be  possible  for  it  to  be.  When  the  car  is 
going  ahead  and  striking  at  an  angle,  that  will  throw  it  that  way,  and 
the  top  of  the  roof  will  be  thrown  the  other  way,  won't  it? 

Q.  You  examined  the  wood-work  of  this  bridge,  you  say  :  whether 
or  not  any  of  the  sleepers  were  rotten?     A.   They  were  not  rotten. 

Q.  Can  you  state  positively  that  none  of  those  sleepers  were  rotten  ? 
A.    There  were  sappy  edges  on  the  sleepers. 

Q.  Were  not  some  of  the  sleepers  so  rotten  that  you  could  kick  off 
pieces  of  wood  with  your  foot?  A.  No,  sir.  I  would  like  to  see 
you  try  that.  There  was  no  rot  about  them,  only  sappy  coiners  that 
you  would  find  in  any  wood  ;  but  the  sleepers  were  sound.  Every 
broken  piece  there  is  sound  wood,  —  hard  pine. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Mr.  Folsom,  suppose  that  those  hangers 
had  been  broken  by  the  engine  or  tender,  what  would  have  been  the 
result?  A.  I  contend  that  the  tender  certainly  would  have  been 
down  in  the  hole  under  the  bridge. 

Q.  What  would  have  become  of  the  first,  second  and  third  cars? 
A.   The}'  would  have  gone  down  into  the  hole. 

Q.  Why?  A.  Because  they  would  have  had  no  support  under 
them. 

Q.    What  would  the  breaking  of  the  hangers  let  go?     A.    It  would 


242  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

have  let  the  floor  beam  go,  and  that  would  have  let  the  four  sets  of 
stringers  go.  About  fifty-two  feet  of  track  would  have  been  left 
without  support. 

Q.  If  that  fifty-two  feet  of  track  had  been  left  without  support  by 
tin  sudden  breaking  of  those  hangers,  where  would  the  cars  have 
gone  that  were  then  upon  the  track?  A.  I  contend  that  they  would 
have  all  gone  down,  and  the  rest  of  the  floor  beams  would  have  to  go, 
and  the  truss  would  have  gone  right  off' the  bridge  bodily. 

Q.  Would  they  have  gone  to  the  westward,  as  they  did  go?  A. 
They  would  not  have  gone  off'  as  they  did  go  on  striking  the  abut- 
ment.  As  they  struck  the  abutment,  with  the  speed  they  had,  they 
would  have  glanced  off  that  way. 

Q.  Would  the  effect  on  the  top  and  bottom  chords  of  the  bridge 
have  been  different  from  what  it  was  after  this  accident?  A.  Alto- 
gether different. 

(^.  Explain  why?  A.  Of  course  it  would  have  gone  down  by  the 
side  of  this  truss  before  it  broke  apart,  and  going  down  by  the  side  of 
that  and  striking  that  slanting  abutment  would  have  thrown  the  bot- 
tom chord  right  out  of  the  bridge  seat  and  into  the  street  before  the 
truss  would  have  been  demolished,  and  the  Pratt  truss  would  have 
been  thrown  in  the  same  direction.  Being  tied  to  the  heavy  truss,  it 
could  not  have  been  otherwise. 

Q.  Would  the  bottom  chord,  in  your  judgment,  have  remained 
whole  if  the  cars  had  fallen  through  the  truss  in  that  way?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Just  as  it  is?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  the  marks  on  the  abutment  indicate  anything  to  your  mind? 
A.    They  support  my  theory. 

Q.  I  mean,  do  the  marks  on  the  abutment  point  to  the  fourth  and 
fifth  cars  having  struck  it  outside  of  the  bridge  instead  of  within  the 
track  on  the  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Have  you  any  idea  how  fast  this  train  was 
going?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  anything  about  it. 

George  L.  Vose  —  sworn. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.    I  live  in  Milton. 

Q.    Your  occupation?     A.    Civil  engineer. 

<v>.  What  has  been  your  education  and  experience  as  a  civil  engi- 
neer? A.  Well,  I  began  here  in  an  office  in  1848,  and  when  the 
Lawrence  Scientific  School  started  up  I  went  there  for  a  year  or  two  ; 
then  I  went  to  work  on  the  railroad  from  Portland  to  Augusta,  in 
Maine;  then  on  the  Albany  &  Susquehanna  Railroad;  then  on  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville,  and  I  think  on  the  Providence,  Warren  &  Bris- 
tol (I  am  not  quite  sure  where  that  road  comes  in  ;  it  don't  amount 


APPENDIX.  243 

to  ranch,  any  way)  ;  and  then  on  what  is  now  a  part  of  the  Chicago, 
Burlington  &  Quincy,  the  road  from  Quincy  up  to  Galesburg  in  Illi- 
nois ;  then  on  the  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  ;  then  on  the  Nova  Scotia 
system  of  railways.  I  left  out  one  road  :  it  is  the  road  which  goes 
from  the  top  of  Lake  Mcmphraraagog  to  Montreal ;  1  don't  remember 
the  name  of  it ;  I  don't  remember  where  it  comes  in,  either.  I  should 
think  that  brought  me  to  about  1860.  Then  for  a  couple  of  years  I 
did  most  of  the  editing  of  a  paper  here  called  il  The  Railway  Times." 
I  stayed  there  until  just  the  close  of  the  war.  Then  I  went  to  Maine 
and  New  Hampshire,  on  various  small  pieces  of  engineering, 
some  railroad  work  and  some  other,  and  stayed  there  until,  I  should 
say,  1869  or  1870.  Then  I  spent  a  good  part  of  two  years  in  travel- 
ling around  the  country  to  look  at  bridges,  and  spent  a  good  deal  of 
time  in  the  best  bridge  shops  then  in  operation,  at  Phoenixville,  Buf- 
falo and  Keystone,  and  some  in  New  Jersey,  —  I  have  forgotten  what 
they  were.  Then  in  1872  I  was  appointed  professor  of  engineering 
in  Bowdoin  College  in  Maine,  and  I  stayed  there  until  1880  or  1881. 
In  those  nine  years  1  worried  the  life  almost  out  of  the  Maine  Rail- 
road Commissioners  on  account  of  their  bad  bridges.  I  guess  I  spent 
a  third  of  all  my  time  in  overhauling  the  miserable  bridges  in  the 
State  of  Maine  ;  there  were  plenty  of  them,  too,  —  wood  and  iron,  and 
wood  and  iron  put  together.  I  did  not  do  that  under  authority  from 
the  State,  I  did  it  on  my  own  hook.  I  commenced  because  I  found  it 
very  instructive  for  the  students  to  look  at  bad  bridges,  to  show  them 
what  not  to  do  ;  and  I  kept  at  that  about  nine  years.  Then  I  came 
here  to  the  Institute  of  Technology  as  professor  of  engineering,  and 
stayed  there  until  just  a  year  ago.  In  the  last  five  years  I  have  been 
off  occasionally  to  overhaul  a  bridge  somewhere,  or  a  roof,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind.  The  last  year  I  have  been  working  on  ray  own 
hook. 

Q.  In  connection  with  those  various  railroads  you  have  done  engi- 
neering, I  suppose?  A.  I  have  done  almost  everything,  from  taking 
charge  of  locomotives  to  building  bridges  and  constructions  of  all 
sorts. 

Q.  Have  you  been  employed  by  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad 
in  this  matter?  A.  No,  sir;  except  so  far  as  this.  I  was  out  there 
at  the  Roslindale  accident  very  soon  after  it  happened,  and  Captain 
Folsom  came  along.  I  told  him  there  was  some  valuable  evidence 
there,  and  he  asked  me  if  I  would  be  good  enough  to  collect  it  and 
send  it  in  to  his  office.  I  told  him  I  would.  1  told  him  distinctly 
afterwards  that  I  was  not  in  his  employ,  I  was  not  doing  this  for  any 
pay  ;  it  was  understood  perfectly.  I  did  not  call  myself  in  the  em- 
ployment of  the  company  in  the  slightest  way.     I  wanted  the  mute 


244  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

rial  brought  in  for  the  information  of  the  commissioners,  that  it  might 
not  lie  lost. 

The  Chaip.man.  I  was  present  at  the  time,  Professor  Vose,  and 
was  wondering  whether  you  considered  yourself  in  the  employ  of  the 
Boston  &  Providence  Railroad  or  of  the  commissioners. 

The  Witness.  Neither.  I  wanted  for  my  own  satisfaction  to  find 
out  why  that  bridge  tumbled  down.  That  is  the  only  reason  I  went 
there. 

Q.   Now,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  what  time  you  got  there, 
what  your  examination  has  been,  what  you  have  found,  and  what  the 
results  of  your  investigations  are,  in  your  own  words?     A.    A  tele- 
gram came  to  the  Milton  station  at  just  about  half-past  nine,  and  I 
walked  right  over  across  from  there,  thinking  I  could  do  that  quicker 
than  to  go  round  by  the  way  of  Boston,  and  I  got  there  between  ten 
and  eleven  ;  I  can't  tell  just  when.     I  was  an  hour  and  a  half,  maybe, 
walking  over.     I  found  the  dead  and  wounded  all  carried  off,  and  I 
commenced  to  look  around  to  see  what  I  could  see.     1  had  never  seen 
that  bridge,  so  it  took  some   time  to  straighten  out  the  snarl  that 
things  were  in  and  to  see  what  it  had  been   like.     The  two  trusses 
being  different,  I  did  not  get  the  hang  of  it  at  first,  but  I  did  after  a  little 
while,  and  in  a  very  short  time  after  I  got  there  I  saw  this  big  casting 
which  was  at  one  of  the  upper  corners  of  the  Hewins  truss,  which  had 
two  broken  links  in  it.     I  saw  that  first,  which  called  my  attention 
particularly  to  the  details.     Then  I  looked  around  to  find  the  rest  of 
those  hangers,  and  they  were  not  far  off;  I  found  them.     I  saw  Cap- 
tain Folsom  there  and   told  him  there  was  some  valuable  evidence 
there  for  him  or  against  him  ;  at  any  rate,  the  commissioners  would 
want  it.     I  refer  to  those  four  pieces,  the  two  broken  hangers  and  the 
two  broken  links  ("  X,"  "  Y,"  and  "  XX,"  "  YY  ").     I  told  him  by 
no  means  to  allow  them  to  get  out  of  his  hands,  they  were  certain  to 
be  wanted  for  this  investigation.     He  authorized  me  to  collect  any 
parts  of  the  wreck  that  I  thought  would  be  of  use,  and  have  them 
properly  taken  care  of  and  sent  in  to  the  station.    So  I  called  one  of  the 
foremen  and  some  of  the  men  and  pointed  out  those  four  pieces,  and 
told  all  of  them  to  keep  their  eyes  on  those  four  things  and  not  let 
any  man  take  them  without  an  order  from  Captain  Folsom.     That 
was  between  twelve  and  one  on  Monday.     Well,  I  stayed  there,  be- 
cause in  the  afternoon  a  good  many  of  the  members  of  the  Boston 
Society  of  Engineers  came  out  who  were  interested  in  the  thing.     I 
took  a  good  many  of  them  and  showed  them  those  links  just  as  they 
lay  there.     I  stayed  until  about  dark.     I  came  in  with  Mr.  Hewins ; 
I  wanted  to  see  what  he  could  tell  me.     1  went  out  as  early  as  I  could 
on  Tuesday.     Captain  Folsom  was  not  in  his  office,  but  on  my  way 
out  I. got  a  note  signed  by  his  assistant  there,  telling  his  foreman  to 


APPENDIX.  245 

deliver  to  me  anything  I  wanted.  The  first  thing  I  wanted  was  the 
broken  links  in  that  casting.  I  got  some  of  the  workmen,  and  they 
knocked  the  pins  out  and  after  a  while  they  got  them  out  for  me. 
That  was  a  little  after  noon  on  Tuesday,  because  I  brought  them  in 
on  the  train.  I  went  out  after  dinner  and  looked  for  the  other  two 
pieces,  and  found  that,  in  spite  of  the  warning  I  had  given  the  work- 
men to  sit  on  them  all  night,  if  necessary,  rather  than  have  them 
taken  away,  they  were  gone.  Then  I  called  all  the  workmen  together 
to  find  out  where  they  had  gone,  and  all  I  could  find  was  that  some 
men,  who  evidently  knew  what  the}'  wanted,  had  got  one  of  the  work- 
men to  get  those  small  pieces  out  so  that  they  could  take  them  away 
(and  somebody  remarked  that  they  paid  him  a  small  sum  of  money 
for  doing  it)  ;  and  they  were  gone.  They  couldn't  very  well  tell 
who  it  was.  They  said  the}'  heard  two  names  mentioned.  One  man 
was  called  "  Brooks."  I  asked  what  kind  of  a  looking  man  he  was. 
They  said  he  was  a  good-looking  man  and  rather  tall,  a  little  bit  of 
gray  coming  in  his  hair.  I  made  up  my  mind  who  he  was,  and  I  went 
to  his  office  as  soon  as  I  came  into  Boston  and  told  him  that  it  was 
very  necessaiy  to  have  those  things.  Mr.  Brooks  did  not  carry  them 
off,  but  he  knew  the  man  who  did.  I  told  him  that  I  wanted  those 
things  ;  I  didn't  want  to  make  an}*  more  trouble  than  was  necessary, 
and  he  need  not  tell  me  the  name  of  the  man  who  took  them,  pro- 
vided the  things  were  brought  back  ;  that  they  belonged  to  the  Boston 
&  Providence  Railroad,  they  didn't  belong  to  me  or  to  him  or  to  the 
Railroad  Commissioners,  and  nobody  had  a  right  to  take  them  away. 
He  told  me  that  this  man  Pri (.chard  (I  did  not  know  who  it  was  then) 
felt  that  he  had  made  a  mistake,  that  be  had  no  business  to  take 
them,  and  gave  me  to  understand  that  he  was  ready  to  bring  them 
back  if  he  knew  where  to  send  them.  I  said,  "  You  may  tell  him 
from  me  that  I  am  authorized  by  the  company  to  get  those  things 
back,  and  if  he  will  send  them  back  I  don't  care  to  know  his  name  ; 
all  I  want  is  those  two  pieces  of  iron,  and  I  want  them  quick."  I 
believe  they  did  not  come.  Wednesday  I  could  not  go  out  myself, 
but  I  sent  my  son  with  an  order  for  those  two  whole  links,  and  he 
brought  them  in.  Mr.  Wellington,  I  want  to  say,  published  in  the 
Boston  papers  a  despatch  apparently  signed  by  me  in  which  he  made 
it  appear  that  I  was  representing  the  company  and  trying  to  cover  up 
something  in  regard  to  these  links.  He  worded  his  despatch  and 
italicized  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  appear  that  if  those  things 
were  sent  back  I  would  not  ask  any  questions.  I  took  that  to  the 
editors  of  five  or  six  papers  and  asked  them  what  impression  they  got 
from  it.  They  said,  '-It  looks  very  much  as  if  the  company  were 
trying  to  do  a  scaly  thing  and  you  were  backing  them  up."  It  looked 
to  me  so.     The  only  reason  I  put  that  clause  in  the  telegram  to  Mr. 


246  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Brook9  was  to  save  that  young  man's  feelings.  I  found  he  was  feeling 
badly,  and  I  did  not  want  to  get  him  into  trouble  if  I  could  help  it. 
It  wns  twisted  round  to  make  it  appear  that  I  wanted  to  help  the 
company.  Captain  Folsom  was  just  as  anxious  that  those  things 
should  be  brought  up  here  before  everybody  as  I  was, — just  exactly. 
It  was  a  perfectly  plain  case. 

Q.  Professor  Vose,  before  you  leave  that  subject,  do  you  remember 
seeing  me  out  there  Monday  morning?  A.  No,  I  don't.  I  took  Mr. 
Stevens  for  you.  Mr.  Kinsley  was  the  only  member  of  the  Board  I 
happened  to  know. 

Q.  When  you  first  saw  Mr.  Folsom,  and  he  asked  you  to  make  an 
examination  of  the  wreck  and  save  such  portions  of  it  as  you  thought 
were  of  interest,  don't  you  remember  of  my  being  present  at  that 
time?  A.  No,  I  don't.  I  didn't  know  you  yesterday  when  I  came 
in  here.     I  asked  who  you  were. 

Q.  At  that  time,  what  did  you  undertake  to  do?  A.  I  told  Cap- 
tain Folsom  that  I  would  not  only  see  that  all  valuable  evidence  was 
brought  in  here,  but  I  would  do  everything  I  possibly  could  to  find 
out  why  that  bridge  broke  down.     I  told  him  that  distinctl}'. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  said  in  my  presence.  I  was  introduced 
to  you  at  the  time,  but  you  probably  do  not  remember  it. 

The  Witness.  I  saw  a  great  many  people  that  daj',  but  I  don't 
remember  you  —  with  all  due  regard  to  you. 

Q.  Now,  please  go  on.  A.  I  did  not  go  around  the  wreck  a  great 
deal  after  that.  I  was  there  a  few  moments  with  Mr.  Philbrick  some 
day  later  in  the  week  ;  I  don't  remember  what  day  it  was.  I  thought 
I  had  got  all  the  evidence  that  could  be  brought  in  here  or  that  need 
be  brought  in,  and  I  have  not  been  out  there  since. 

Q.  Have  you  read  the  testimony  as  it  has  been  submitted?  A. 
No,  sir ;  I  have  not  read  the  newspapers.  There  is  altogether  too 
much  trash  in  them  to  read.  I  have  not  read  any  of  the  testimony 
here  to  speak  of.  I  thought  I  would  wait  until  you  got  through  with 
your  investigation,  so  as  to  get  the  thing  right  end  foremost.  The 
"  Railroad  Gazette"  has  been  bothering  me  to  death  to  write  them 
something.  I  told  them  to  wait  until  this  hearing  was  over,  and  then 
they  would  have  the  truth.  I  have  been  very  careful  to  say  very 
little  about  the  matter.  The  reporters  have  gotten  very  little  out  of 
me.  The  "  Advertiser  "  got  this  much  out  of  me,  that  I  didn't  know 
anything  about  it,  and  if  I  did  I  should  not  tell  them.  I  have  been 
bothered  with  these  disasters  fifteen  years,  and  I  wanted  to  find  out, 
if  I  could,  why  that  bridge  broke  down.  I  did  not  care  two  cents  for 
the  company,  the  commissioners  or  anybody  else.  I  did  want  the 
company  to  have  fair  play,  for  I  see  the  reporters  are  premature  in 
all  their  conclusions.     I  saw  this  man  Wellington  was  entirely  pre- 


APPENDIX.  247 

mature,  and  I  wanted  to  do  everything  that  could  be  done  in  order 
that  the  company  should  have  a  fair  show,  the  same  as  anybody 
should. 

Q.  From  such  examination  as  you  have  made,  what  are  your  con- 
clusions in  regard,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  construction  of  that 
bridge,  as  to  whether  it  was  properly  constructed  and  was  a  safe 
bridge  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  used,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  as  to  the  original  cause  of  the  disaster  and  the  general  course 
of  it.  and  your  reasons  for  your  various  statements?  A.  I  think 
that  bridge,  in  its  general  plan  and  in  its  details,  was  a  standing  in- 
vitation to  be  knocked  to  pieces,  and  I  think  the  immediate  cause  of 
the  trouble  was  those  broken  links.  I  don't  care  whether  that  train 
was  off  the  track  or  on  it,  or  whether  there  were  broken  axles  or  not. 
If  those  things  did  happen,  they  were  simply  the  last  straw  that  broke 
the  camel's  back.  The  thing  was  waiting  to  tumble  down.  That  is 
my  opinion  of  that  bridge. 

Q.  Your  first  statement  was  that  you  considered  the  bridge  was  a 
standing  invitation  to  be  knocked  down?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  In  what  respects  was  its  construction  faulty?  A.  In  the  first 
place,  it  was  not  one  bridge,  it  was  fragments  of  several  bridges.  It 
was  an  old  iron  truss,  a  Parker  truss,  so  called,  which  had  been 
shoved  over  on  the  opposite  side  from  that  on  which  it  originally 
stood  and  the  loads  applied  to  it  as  they  never  were  intended  to  be 
applied,  so  that  you  did  not  bring  more  than  half  of  it  into  action.  I 
told  Mr.  Parker,  "  You  were  not  treated  fairly  ;  you  have  been  dragged 
into  this  business."  His  truss  is  not  a  bad  truss  ;  that  is,  in  its  gen- 
eral plan.  I  don't  like  it  much  in  its  details,  but  I  don't  think  it  had 
much  to  do  with  the  matter.  The  load  was  applied  to  four  points  in- 
stead of  eight  or  ten— I  don't  remember.  The  truss  on  the  other 
side,  the  truss  which  I  consider  a  standing  invitation  to  be  knocked 
to  pieces,  is  a  Hewins  truss,  which,  as  I  see  it  in  the  picture,  is  made 
up  of  some  long,  hollow,  built-up  wrought-iron  beams,  fastened  to- 
gether with  very  imperfect  details.  My  notion  is  this:  Supposing  I 
take  half  a  dozen  small  blocks  of  wood  six  inches  long  and  two  or 
three  inches  wide  ;  I  can  press  those  blocks  together  and  hold  them 
together  without  any  joint,  if  I  press  perfectly  true ;  but  suppose  I 
give  them  a  little  twist,  they  all  go  at  once.  That  is  the  way  that 
truss  is  put  together.  Now.  what  we  want,  and  what  we  have  to-day 
in  the  construction  of  bridges,  is  one  stick  without  any  joints  ;  we 
make  it  just  as  continuous  as  we  can.  That  is  the  way  we  make 
bridges  now-a-days.  You  can  press  that  as  much  as  you  are  a  mind 
to  and  you  do  not  have  a  collapse;  whereas,  if  you  have  a  truss 
built  in  this  way,  you  see  there  is  no  proper  connection  between  the 
parts  ;  there  is  nothing  but  just  a  bad  joint  there,  so  that  if  you  pu9h 


248  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

pretty  hard,  you  have  that  action.  (Illustrating.)  That  is  win-  I 
say  it  was  waiting  to  be  knocked  to  pieces.  I  think  it  was  a  miser- 
al>le  trap  at  the  start.  The  hangers,  I  think,  tell  their  own  story. 
They  were  broken  off  about  half-way,  to  start  with.  Nobody  knows 
how  long  they  had  been  broken.  That  is  the  first  thing  I  looked 
at. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  how  much  you  consider  new  break  and  how 
much  old  break  in  that  piece,  —  "  Y  "?  A.  I  think  it  is  all  old  break 
except  a  small  portion,  about  an  eighth  of  an  inch,  on  the  side  of  the 
break  nearest  the  eye. 

<t>.  Was  that  ever  properly  welded  there?  A.  I  should  say  that 
it  was  not. 

Q.  Did  that  break  present  the  same  general  appearance  Monday 
morning  that  it  does  now?  A.  It  looks  just  exactly  as  it  did  then, 
except  on  that  edge.  I  stood  on  my  head  in  the  mud  there  quite  a 
while  to  be  sure  I  saw  those  things. 

Q.  Now,  the  other  one, "  X  "?  A.  I  should  say  that  portion  was 
a  uew  break  ;  but  I  should  say  that  that  was  old  along  there. 

Q.    What  is  that?     The  weld?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    Was  it  ever  strong?     A.    I  don't  know  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  Is  that  all  new  break?  A.  I  don't  think  it  is.  I  think  some- 
thing over  half  of  it  is  new  break.  Well,  about  an  inch  and  two- 
tliirds  is  new  break  and  one-third  is  old. 

Q.  That  is  the  break  nearest  the  top  of  the  eye  across  the  weld? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  And  the  other  break?  A.  I  don't  know  about  that.  I  guess 
that  is  new  break.  It  is  dirty  and  I  can't  quite  tell,  but  I  guess  it  is 
new  break.     (Referring  to  the  portion  of  the  break  in  the  lower  eye.) 

Q.  Can  that  be  cleaned  so  that  anybody  can  tell?  A.  I  don't 
know  whether  it  can  or  not.  The  request  was  made  to  have  it 
cleaned,  but  I  said,  "  No ;  don't  wet  it,  but  have  it  cleaned  by  some- 
body who  knows  how  to  clean  it  without  making  any  change 
in  it." 

Q.  Who  does  know  how  to  clean  it?  A.  I  don't  know,  but  I 
suggested  that  Mr.  Richards,  the  master  mechanic,  should  clean  it. 
I  thought  it  would  be  possible  to  use  a  dry  brush  and  not  wet  it. 
The  moment  you  begin  to  wet  it  there  comes  up  the  question  if  you 
are  not  getting  up  some  more  rust.  The  break  in  the  lower  eye  of 
"  Y  "  correspouds  with  the  other  on  the  back  part  in  its  characteristics. 
The  breaks  on  the  lower  end  of  "  X  "  correspond  with  those  on  the 
upper  in  appearance.     There  is  no  question  about  that. 

Q.  And  the  weld?  A.  Yes.  These  other  links  that  are  not 
pulled  apart  are  in  pretty  bad  condition,  you  notice. 

Q.     Do   you   know    from    what    part    of   the   block   this   came? 


APPENDIX.  249 

A.   Yes,  sir ;  this  came  from  the  opposite  end  of  the  same  chord  where 
these  were. 

Q.  At  the  south  end  of  the  top  chord  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Describe  the  peculiarities  of  those  plates?  A.  Well,  I  don't 
know  what  to  say  about  them,  except  to  say  they  are  cracked  and 
broken.  It  looks  to  me  like  a  very  bad  weld  there,  but  whether  that 
thing  was  broken  before  the  bridge  tumbled  down  or  broken  in  falling 
I  don't  know.     Evidently  that  crack  was  not  made  in  falling. 

Q.  You  can't  tell  whether  that  is  a  new  or  old  break?  A.  I  can 
tell  by  breaking  it  off  and  looking  at  it. 

Q.  As  a  specimen  of  iron  work,  do  you  consider  it  suitable  to  be 
put  into  such  a  position?  A.  No,  sir,  not  at  all ;  not  in  position  in 
any  bridge.     I  don't  hesitate  to  say  that  right  off. 

Q.  Is  it  suitable  iron  and  strong  enough  for  such  a  position,  assum- 
ing that  it  was  good  iron  and  properly  made?  A.  Good  iron,  prop- 
erly made,  will  hold  a  good  deal.  It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to  say 
how  a  load  will  act  on  such  a  thing.  That  is  a  one-sided  affair.  It 
does  not  pull  as  this  link  does.  That  is  made  to  pull  all  on  one  side. 
That  is  all  wrong.  If  you  wanted  to  pull  a  thing  to  pieces,  that  is  a 
good  way  to  do  it. 

Q.  The  trouble  with  that  is  that  the  sections  are  not  vertically 
under  each  other?  A.  No,  not  that  exactly;  but  that  is  eccentric. 
You  see  the  difference.  That  thing  is  made  just  as  much  one  side  of 
the  centre  as  the  other ;  that  is  not.  That  is  all  on  one  side  ;  you 
don't  get  a  good  square  pull  on  that. 

Q.  What  is  the  tendency  of  a  pull  on  this  end?  A.  To  twist  that 
end  off,  break  it  off  somewhere,  I  can't  say  just  where  ;  but  draw  a 
straight  line  from  the  centre  of  that  to  the  centre  of  that,  and  the 
tendency  is  to  pull  the  thing  round.  It  gives  a  side  pull  instead  of 
a  straight  pull,  as  there  is  here.  You  can  see  here  what  sort  of  work 
that  is.      (Referring  to  "  S.") 

Q.  Describe  it,  please,  so  that  it  can  be  put  in  the  evidence.  A.  I 
should  describe  it  as  a  very  badly  welded  piece  of  iron.  When  you 
see  such  bad  work  as  that  in  one  place,  you  are  bound  to  suspect  the 
whole  of  it,  quality  of  material  and  all. 

Q.  How  about  these  hangers?  If  one  of  them  had  given  way, 
would  the  bridge  have  fallen  ?     A.    Perhaps  not. 

Q.  When  any  two  of  those  gave  way,  what  would  have  been  the 
effect  on  the  bridge ?     A.    They  would  have  let  the  floor  down. 

Q.  Let  the  track  down?  A.  Let  everything  down  except  the 
truss.  I  consider  those  the  key  points  of  the  bridge.  If  they  go, 
everything  goes. 

Q.  Were  those  things  in  such  a  position  that  their  condition  could 
be  examined?     A.    No,  sir. 


250  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  What  portion  of  those  hangers  could  have  been  examined?  A. 
A  very  little  of  the  bottom  of  the  smaller  link,  as  I  recollect.  There 
was  a  little  of  it  yon  conld  see  below,  but  not  much. 

Q.  Could  this  portion  here  where  "X"  is  broken  be  seen?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.    Could  the  portion  where  "  Y"  is  broken  be  seen?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  After  the  bridge  was  built,  was  there  any  way  of  getting  at 
those  so  as  to  see  them  without  taking  the  bridge  down?  No,  sir; 
there  was  not. 

Q.  Is  that  a  good  method  of  construction?  A.  No,  sir;  accord- 
ing to  my  notion  that  one  thing  alone  is  enough  to  condemn  that 
bridge.  Suppose  I  should  make  a  large  iron  bridge,  a  pretty  complex 
structure,  put  it  under  a  wooden  cover,  and  paint  on  the  outside 
"  This  bridge  is  never  to  be  examined,"  —  would  that  be  a  good  plan? 
I  think  not.     That  is  exactly  what  has  been  done  here. 

Mr.  Kinsley.  In  that  case^  you  could  take  down  your  wooden 
cover  and  examine  it. 

The  Witness.  Then  I  will  say  iron.  You  may  cover  it  with  some- 
thing }'ou  cannot  take  off. 

Q.  Was  there  no  way  of  getting  into  this  block  ;  no  way  of  tak- 
ing off  any  portion  of  the  iron  or  anything  so  that  you  could  look  into 
this  block?  A.  I  don't  think  you  could.  I  don't  think  you  could 
make  any  kind  of  a  satisfactory  examination  of  that  angle  block  or 
those  forgings  without  taking  the  bridge  down. 

Q.  And  yet  upon  each  one  of  these  sets  of  two  depended  the  floor 
system  of  the  bridge  for  its  support?     A.    Yes,  entirely. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  that  those  irons  when  they  were  first  sent  to 
the  forge  presented  the  appearance  of  well-made  hangers?  A.  Well, 
I  don't  know.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  such  bad  welding  as  that 
could  have  escaped  detection  as  soon  as  they  were  made.  It  may 
have. 

Q.  In  the  general  character  of  their  make  do  they  show  good  work- 
manship, or  poor?  A.  I  don't  think  they  show  good  workmanship  ; 
they  show  slovenly  workmanship. 

Q.  While  you  were  professor  at  the  Institute,  did  any  of  the  stu- 
dents, to  your  knowledge,  ever  make  any  examination  of  this  bridge? 
A.  I  don't  know  that  they  ever  did.  I  made  a  good  deal  of  a  point 
of  sending  the  students  out  to  the  bridges  in  the  neighborhood  to  make 
drawings  of  them,  in  order  that  they  might  study  the  real  thing,  full 
size  ;  but  I  had  never  seen  this  bridge  myself,  and  I  don't  know  that 
anybody  ever  made  a  drawing  of  it.  I  met  one  of  the  students  while 
I  was  out  there,  a  }roung  man  from  Providence  by  the  name  of  Fol- 
well,  —  he  was  a  very  bright,  nice  fellow,  a  college  graduate  before  he 
came  to  the  Institute,  —  and  he  told  me  that  if  he  was  not  very  much 


APPENDIX.  251 

mistaken  I  had  sent  him  out  to  make  a  drawing  of  that  bridge  some 
years  before,  but  he  was  afraid  he  had  not  made  it.  He  said  he  had 
made  some  measurements,  but  he  thought  he  did  not  make  a  drawing 
of  it.  I  told  him  if  he  had  one,  to  send  it  to  me.  He  has  not  sent  it, 
so  I  guess  he  has  not  got  it. 

Q.  What  is  your  idea  in  regard  to  the  cause  of  the  accident,  how 
the  bridge  fell,  etc.  A.  I  haven't  any  idea  at  all.  I  didn't  think  it 
was  worth  while  to  get  one.  The  cause  of  the  trouble  seemed  so  very 
evident  to  me  that  I  did  not  even  lo^k  to  see  how  the  cars  lay  or  how 
the  truss  was  twisted.  When  I  saw  these  hangers  I  did  not  care  to 
look  any  further. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Professor  Vose,  did  you  examine  the 
ears  at  the  end  of  the  upper  chord  by  which  the  chord  was  fixed  into 
the  casting?     A.   Yes,  I  did. 

Q.  How  deep  were  they?  A.  I  should  say  those  things  might  be 
six  inches  long  and  three  inches  wide.  They  looked  to  me  very  small 
to  give  the  posts  any  brace  or  hold  on  the  casting. 

Q.  How  deep  did  they  run  into  the  casting?  A.  Oh,  I  shall  have 
to  guess  at  it.  I  should  say  they  might  have  run  in  a  couple  of 
inches  ;  perhaps  three  inches.     I  don't  know. 

Q.  That  was  all  that  held  the  upper  chord  into  the  joint  block? 
A.   That  was  all  I  could  see. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true  that  if  a  floor  beam  did  give  way  and  let  the 
train  down  into  the  ties  which  connected  the  trusses,  the  breaking  of 
those  ties  and  the  strain  upon  those  ties  would  tend  to  snap  that 
whole  truss  out  of  the  joint?  Do  I  make  myself  clear?  A.  I  wish 
you  would  ask  it  once  more,  and  let  me  see  if  I  get  your  notion. 

Q.  As  I  understand  it,  the  two  trusses  are  tied  and  braced  together. 
The  Pratt  truss  is  tied  and  braced  to  the  Hewins  truss  by  diagonal 
rods  that  run  across?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  if  a  car,  or  a  number  of  cars,  were  let  down  upon  those 
ties  and  braces,  would  not  the  effect  of  that  be  to  pull  the  upper  chord 
out  of  that  joint  and  utterly  destroy  the  truss?  A.  Yes;  and  so  I 
think  if  anything  cut  off  the  lateral  braces,  the  truss  would  go. 

Q.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  knowing  the  stress  which  this 
bridge  was  called  upon  to  bear,  the  size  of  the  engines  and  the  weight 
of  the  cars  that  were  to  run  over  it,  whether  it  is  not  entirely  possible 
to  make  a  mathematical  calculation  which  shall  amount  to  demon- 
stration whether  the  bridge  was  sufficient  for  its  work  originally?  A. 
Well,  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  those  defective  welds? 

Q.  {Supposing  the  material  to  be  perfect  throughout  and  taking  the 
size  alone?  A.  I  don't  know  how  to  figure  on  a  link  that  is  twisted 
one  side  in  that  wav.  I  can  show  you  whole  volumes  of  mathematics 
to  show  you  how  to  do  it,  but  I  don't  know  how  to  do  it.     I  can 


252  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

figure  well  enough  on  those  straight  links,  but  when  you  bend  a  link 
on  one  side  and  make  the  pull  upon  it  a  one-sided  pull,  I  must  confess 
I  don't  know  how  to  figure  upon  it. 

Q.  But,  aside  from  that,  you  are  able  to  calculate  the  strength  of 
a  certain  size  of  wrought  iron  to  a  mathematical  certainty,  are  you 
not?  A.  It  depends  upon  what  you  mean  b}T  "  mathematical  cer- 
tainty." There  is  still  a  good  deal  of  guess-work  in  the  making  of 
bridges.  I  can  do  what  is  commonly  done  by  bridge-building  engi- 
neers. I  can  go  through  with  what  is  called  figuring  on  the  strain 
to  determine  the  size  of  iron  required. 

Q.  And  then  you  add  something,  don't  you?  A.  We  add  about 
600  per  cent.,  to  cover  up  what  we  don't  know. 

Q.  Have  3rou  made  any  such  calculation  on  this  bridge?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  none  at  all. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  the  misuse  of  the  Pratt  truss  by  its  having  been 
treated  at  four  or  five  different  points  when  it  should  have  been 
treated  at  eight  or  ten.  Will  you  explain  what  you  meant  by  that 
more  in  detail?  A.  Why,  that  Pratt  truss  was  made  with  a  top 
chord  and  a  bottom  chord,  and  I  think  about  sixteen  vertical  posts. 
It  was  intended  to  put  say  a  sixteenth  of  the  load  on  each  one  of 
those  posts.  But  when  they  put  the  Hewins  truss  on  the  opposite 
side,  they  carried  across,  I  think,  only  four  floor  beams,  instead  of 
eight  or  ten  or  so,  as  they  ought  to.  That  is,  instead  of  putting  part 
of  the  load  on  each  place  that  was  made  to  bear  it,  they  skipped  three 
or  four,  did  not  put  any  on,  and  then  put  it  all  on  the  next,  and  then 
skipped  three  or  four  more,  and  then  piled  it  all  up  on  the  next. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  to  see  whether  that  is  a  double-system 
truss?     A.   Yes,  it  is. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true  that  as  the  bearings  were  made  in  its  construction 
one  of  the  systems  was  entirely  left  out?  A.  Yes;  every  other  set, 
of  course. 

Q.  Did  not  that  reduce  the  strength  of  that  truss  one-half?  A.  I 
cannot  quite  say  about  that.  You  are  bringing  in  new  elements  of 
computation.  I  don't  know  just  what  the  chord  is  doing  under  these 
conditions.  You  have  thrown  out  every  other  brace,  but  I  can't  say 
that  you  have  affected  the  strain  on  the  chords  in  the  way  you 
speak  of. 

Q.  But  it  does  not  put  the  truss  to  all  the  work  it  is  capable  of 
doing,  does  it?     A.    No;  it  does  not  treat  it  fairly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  far  on  to  the  abutment  on  each  side  of  the 
bridge  the  rails  ran?     A.    No  ;  I  didn't  notice  that  at  all. 

Q.  How  much  supporting  power  did  the  whole  of  that  floor  work 
have  for  a  train  passing  over  it  at  the  rate  of  twelve  miles  an  hour? 
A.    It  depends  upon  what  the  floor  is  fixed  on  to. 


APPENDIX.  253 

Q.    "Well,  the  floor  was  connected  with  the  abutment?     A.   Yes. 
Q.    Rested  on  one  end  of  the  abutment?     A.    Yes. 
Q.   And  that  floor  was  made  up  of  several  pieces  which  you  have 
described?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  That  would  have  some  supporting  power  for  a  train,  would  it 
not,  even  if  the  bridge  itself  gave  way?     A.    Why,  no. 

Q.  Supposing  a  floor  beam  gave  way,  would  not  the  floor  itself 
have  some  slight  supporting  power  to  keep  up  the  cars  for  a  time? 
A.  Oh,  yes;  I  suppose  it  would.  In  fact  you  may  go  further  than 
that.  The  Providence  road  have  a  photograph,  which  I  have  seen 
somewhere,  of  a  bridge  which  is  all  gone  except  the  rails  and  ties ;  it 
is  hanging  on  to  nothing,  apparently.  It  is  not  a  very  good  bridge, 
though. 

Q.  That  would  not  be  possible,  would  it,  unless  the  ties  and  rails 
were  fastened  together?  It  would  not  be  possible  if  the  only  joint 
were  a  Fisher  chair,  or  whatever  it  is  called.  A.  No  ;  I  should  not 
want  to  put  much  weight  on  a  thing  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Under  those  circumstances  the  rails  would  be  hardly  any  support 
to  the  train?     A.    I  should  think,  nothing  to  speak  of. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Achorn.)  What  do  you  say  to  this  post  here,  with- 
out any  lateral  support  whatever?  A.  Well,  it  might  not  need  any 
lateral  support.  I  don't  know  how  big  it  is.  I  do  not  know  that 
there  is  any  objection  to  putting  a  post  in  there  without  an}r  lateral 
support  if  you  make  the  post  big  enough. 

Q.  As  you  see  it  in  the  bridge,  should  you  say  that  was  a  good 
piece  of  engineering?  A.  Well,  I  don't  like  it.  I  have  seen  worse 
things  in  a  bridge*.     It  is  not  a  thing  to  be  proud  of. 

Q.  1  would  like  to  ask  you  in  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  bridge 
was  a  skew  bridge,  —  would  not  the  fact  that  the  bridge  was  on  a 
skew  make  it  weaker  than  if  at  right  angles?  A.  There  is  no  trouble 
in  making  a  skew  bridge  just  as  strong  as  any  other.  It  costs  a  little 
more. 

Q.  Then,  in  building  a  skew  bridge  you  would  have  to  make  pro- 
vision for  that  fact.  A.  Yes  ;  for  the  dollars  and  cents.  You  can 
build  a  skew  bridge.  Mr.  Philbrick  here  has  built  a  very  nice  skew 
bridge  at  Brighton. 

Q.  But  it  would  have  to  be  built  stronger,  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  fact  that  it  was  a  skew  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  a  strain  comes  on  a  skew  bridge  does  it  affect  the  trusses 
in  the  same  way  that  it  would  if  the  bridge  were  built  at  right  angles? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  The  strain  comes  on  one  side?  A.  On  this  particular  bridge, 
you  have  got  off  of  the  middle  truss  before  you  get  on  to  the  other 
one. 


254  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  One  truss  would  bear  the  whole,  would  it?  A.  The  abutment 
on  the  other  side  and  one  truss. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  test  was  made  of  this  bridge  in  1882?  A. 
No  ;  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Q.  I  believe  it  was  stated  in  evidence  that,  under  a  test  at  three 
points,  one  truss  of  the  bridge  deflected  a  fraction  over  two-sixteenths 
of  an  inch  and  the  other  something  over  eight-sixteenths  of  an  inch. 
What  do  you  say  to  such  a  test  as  that?  What  does  it  indicate? 
A.  You  cannot  tell  what  a  test  of  that  kind  indicates  without  know- 
ing what  the  bridge  is  like,  and  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  made. 
I  cannot  tell  you  anything  that  amounts  to  anything  unless  I  have  all 
the  conditions. 

Q.  Can  you  infer  anything  from  the  fact  that  the  trusses  deflected 
unequally?  A.  I  cannot  see  how  they  can  help  being  unequal. 
One  truss  is  doing  more  than  the  other  truss  is  at  a  particular  point 
of  time. 

Q.  The  average  deflection  of  one  truss  was  two-sixteenths  of  an 
inch,  and  of  the  other  truss  it  was  eight-sixteenths :  does  not  that 
indicate  a  weakness?  A.  No ;  because  the  track  was  very  close  up 
to  one  truss  and  away  off  from  the  other.  Of  course  one  truss  was 
going  to  deflect  more  than  the  other.  The  track  running  right  along 
close  to  the  Hewins  truss,  it  would  naturally  deflect  more  than  the 
other  one. 

Q.  What  should  you  say  if  the  other  truss  deflected  the  most?  A. 
I  should  want  to  see  it  before  I  said  anything ;  then  I  should  make  a 
ver}*  decided  remark. 

Q.  If  they  are  to  bear  their  proportion  of  the  weight  equally,  ought 
they  not  to  deflect  equally?  A.  Why,  no;  not  if  the  load  is  close 
to  one  and  away  off  from  the  other,  because  one  of  them  has  a  great 
deal  more  weight  to  deflect  it. 

Q.  Would  the  hangers  of  that  bridge  be  subjected  to  the  hardest 
service  of  any  part  of  the  bridge,  should  you  say?  A.  Well,  I  don't 
know.  The  I. angers  take  the  load  pretty  quick  and  carry  it  along  to 
the  truss.  I  don't  know  that  they  would  have  the  hardest  work.  The 
work  comes  first  on  the  track,  the  track  hands  it  over  to  the  floor 
beam,  the  floor  beam  hands  it  over  to  the  hangers,  and  they  hand  it 
over  to  the  truss.     It  is  a  link  in  the  chain. 

Q.  What  effect  would  applying  the  brakes  to  a  train  on  the  bridge 
have  on  the  hangers?  A.  It  is  not  a  very  good  plan  to  put  the 
brakes  on  when  going  over  a  bridge.  However,  I  think  any  bridge 
ought  to  be  able  to  stand  putting  on  the  brakes.  If  it  won't,  it  has 
got  a  precious  small  margin  of  strength.  That  is  all  I  have  got  to 
say  about  it. 

Q.    You  think  that  that  eccentric  hanger  was  unnecessary?     A.    I 


APPENDIX.  255 

should  not  put  it  in.  I  don't  know  why  it  is  necessary  at  all.  I 
should  not  put  such  a  thing  into  a  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  know  there  was  a  bridge  fell  down  in 
Maine  some  time  ago,  don't  you?     A.    Lots  of  them. 

Q.  There  was  one  in  particular  that  I  know  about :  at  Saccarappa, 
was  it?     A.    At  Kennebunk,  on  the  Boston  &  Maine. 

Q.  There  was  an  iron  bridge  that  fell  down?  A.  There  have  been 
a  good  man}'  bad  bridges  there. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  tell  me,  if  you  can,  whether  this  particular  bridge 
was  built  by  Mr.  Hewins  or  the  New  England  Company  ?  A.  I  think 
you  are  referring  to  the  Wells  bridge  on  the  Boston  &  Maine. 

Q.  By  whom  was  that  built?  A.  By  this  very  man  Hewins,  I  am 
told. 

Q.  Then  there  was  another  bridge  fell  on  the  Vermont  Central,  at 
Waterbury  :  do  you  know  anything  about  that  bridge?  A.  No  ;  I 
don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Never  heard  of  it?  A.  I  may  have  heard  of  it  at  the  time; 
but  I  don't  remember  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  bridge  of  the  pattern  of  Mr.  Hewins' 
that  has  fallen  down  besides  the  one  at  Wells?  A.  It  is  commonly 
called  the  Kennebunk  bridge,  and  fell  in  1882. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  bridge  built  by  Mr.  Hewins  that  has 
fallen?     A.    No  ;  I  don't. 

Q.  Have  you  in  your  investigations  lately  had  occasion  to  run 
against  this  peculiar  style  of  bridge  that  Mr.  Hewins  has  built?  A. 
No,  sir  ;  this  is  the  only  one  that  I  ever  saw.     This  is  half  a  one. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago  was  it  the  rule  amongst  Grst-class  bridge  builders 
to  weld  the  links,  or  was  it  the  rule  to  punch  the  hole  through  which 
the  pin  goes?  A.  I  should  say  as  late  as  that  it  was  not  the  practice 
to  weld  but  to  die-punch,  as  the  term  was. 

Q.  And  now  what  would  you  do?  A.  They  would  be  forged  in  a 
hydraulic  press. 

Q.  But  ten  years  ago  that  was  not  the  practice?  A.  I  think  as 
late  as  ten  years  ago  it  was  not  the  practice.  In  1872  I  was  writing 
a  book  on  bridge  building,  engineering  and  other  things,  and  I  wrote 
to  about  twelve  of  the  best  bridge-building  establishments  1  could 
think  of  in  this  country,  and  asked  them  which  was  best,  to  weld  an 
eye  bar  or  to  upset  it  and  punch  it  afterwards,  and.  I  got  about  as 
many  letters  on  one  side  as  the  other.  But  the  queer  thing  was  this, 
that  one  man  wrote  me  and  said  :  i4  You  never  want  to  weld  anything 
at  all.  You  must  always  upset  the  bars  and  then  punch  out  a  hole, 
and  then  you  will  get  something  yon  can  rely  upon."  This  letter 
came  from  one  of  the  Phoenixville  people.  I  wrote  to  one  of  the  Lew- 
iston  Bridge  Works  people  and  asked  his  opinion.     He  said,   "You 


256  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

don't  want  any  of  those  upset  bars  :  you  want  a  weld.  The  Phosnix- 
ville  people  have  sent  us  some  upset  bars,  and  we  have  cut  off  the 
ends  and  welded  them  on,  because  we  like  welding  best."  That 
was  the  difference  of  opinion  at  that  time.  You  can  do  first-class 
work  iu  welding,  but  it  is  not  practised  now.  It  was  not  ten  years 
ago,  to  any  extent. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Your  objection  to  this  truss,  as  I  under- 
stand you,  is  that  the  compression  members  are  not  fastened  together 
so  as  to  be  continuous,  but  are  kept  together  by  something  in  the 
nature  of  a  keystone,  which  can  be  knocked  out?  A.  That  is  one 
very  great  objection  to  the  truss. 

Q.  That  objection  does  not  affect  its  weight-carrying  power  so  long 
as  it  is  kept  plumb?  A.  As  long  as  you  keep  everything  straight 
and  right  it  will  do  its  work. 

Q.  You  have  seen  nothing  in  the  truss  itself  to  lead  you  to  sup- 
pose that  it  had  not  ample  power  to  carry  the  weight  put  upon  it  if  it 
was  kept  straight?  A.  No;  that  is,  I  got  the  general  impression 
that  there  was  iron  enough  there  to  make  a  bridge  out  of. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago,  can  you  say  whether  or  not  this  fashion  of  truss 
was  frequently  used  in  railroad  bridges,  —  that  is,  trusses  of  the  same 
general  character,  with  joint  blocks  holding  the  upper  members 
together?  A.  Yes.  The  Phoenixville  people  in  their  early  bridges 
made  up  the  top  chord  of  short  pieces,  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  long,  all 
run  into  a  cast-iron  joint  block,  but  the  detail  was  a  great  deal  better 
than  here.  They  took  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  run  parts  of  the  churd 
into  the  box  and  to  have  decidedly  strong  lateral  bracing. 

Q.  That  method  of  making  the  top  chord  with  a  series  of  links 
held  together  by  compression  was  not  infrequent  in  the  United  States, 
was  it?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  don't  think  it  was. 

Q.  You  say  the  Phoenixville  Company  built  them  in  that  way,  sub- 
stantially ?  A.  They  built  them  in  that  way,  but  in  better  detail  aud 
with  a  great  deal  of  lateral  bracing. 

Q.  Those  lateral  braces  connected  the  two  trusses  so  that  you 
would  have  to  knock  both  down  in  order  to  get  one  down?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  I  objected  to  the  bridge  across  the  Kennebec  at  Augusta,  Me., 
recently  on  that  ground. 

Q.  Was  that  one  of  that  class  of  bridges?  A.  It  was  built  just 
before  the  Phoenixville  Company  came  into  existence.  They  don't 
father  that  bridge. 

Q.  .Should  you  regard  such  bridges  as  safe  against  a  derailed  train? 
A.  I  don't  know.  I  think  you  might  make  such  a  bridge  as  that 
safe  ;  1  should  not  want  to  try  it.  It  would  depend  upon  which  chord 
the  load  was. 

Q.   At  the  time  I  am  speaking  of,  ten  years  ago,  the  fact  that  the 


APPENDIX.  257 

upper  chord  was  made  in  that  way  and  capable  of  being  knocked  to 
pieces  by  a  blow  was  not  considered  a  fatal  defect  bv  all  reputable 
builders,  was  it?  A.  No,  not  by  all  builders,  but  there  was  a  great 
deal  of  discussion  going  on  at  the  time. 

Q.  There  was  discussion,  but  nevertheless  there  were  reputable 
biidge  builders  who  still  maintained  that  such  bridges  were  correct  in 
principle  and  were  still  putting  them  in  practical  operation  on  well- 
managed  roads?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  under  the  directiou  of  respectable  engineers?  A.  Yes, 
there  is  one  right  by  3-011.  Mr.  Philbrick  superintended  for  the  Bos- 
ton &  Maine  putting  up  one  of  that  kind,  I  think,  at  Haverhill,  and  I 
myself  wrote  a  ver}'  flattering  notice  of  that  bridge  in  the  paper, 
praising  its  good  qualities  ;  but,  mind  you,  the  load  is  on  the  lower 
part  of  that,  not  on  the  upper  part,  so  that  a  derailed  train  would  not 
cut  off  all  the  lateral  bracing. 

Q.  In  a  case  of  that  kind,  iu  which  you  say  you  commended  Mr. 
Philbrick,  the  upper  chord  was  protected  against  such  blows,  and  I 
suppose  the  details  were  better  carried  out?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  But  that  was  not  so  in  all  the  bridges  of  this  character  which 
were  built  by  reputable  bridge  builders  at  that  time,  was  it?  A.  No, 
sir.  I  can  show  3*011  bridges  with  the  weight  on  the  top  chord  where 
cutting  through  the  floor  would  have  knocked  everything  to  pieces. 

Q.    Are  such  bridges  still  in  existence?     A.   Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  A  good  many  of  them,  are  there  not?  A.  I  have  no  doubt 
there  are  plenty  of  them.  They  always  leave  them  up  until  they 
tumble  down. 

Q.  I  do  not  understand,  Professor  Yose,  that  you  think  that  in  this 
case  the  truss  failed  as  the  first  thing?  A.  No;  I  dou't  think  the 
truss  failed  as  the  first  thing. 

Q.  Or  that  it  fell  under  vertical  pressure?  A.  I  have  no  reason 
to  believe  so. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  an  opinion  on  the  quality  of  the  iron  of 
those  hangers?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  not  now.  I  should  want  to  break 
them  off  and  look  at  them. 

Q.  Can  you  suggest  how  the  qualit3' should  be  tested?  A.  Well, 
it  wants  to  be  done  with  a  great  deal  of  care.  If  that  is  the  very 
best  iron  in  the  world,  you  can  break  it  so  that  it  will  look  like  a  long, 
fibrous  break,  or  you  can  break  it  by  another  method  so  that  it  will 
look  like  the  best  cast  iron.  It  can  be  tested  fast  enough  to  prove 
what  the  quality  of  the  iron  is  ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Q.  Can  anybody  judge  by  looking  at  it  now  what  the  quality  of 
that  iron  is?     A.    I  cannot. 

Q.    Uo  you  believe  anybody  else  can?     A.    I  have  my  doubts. 

Q.   Then  such  opinions  as  have  been  expressed  that  the  quality  of 


258  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

the  iron  is  bad  must,  in  your  judgment,  have  been  expressed  without 
adequate  knowledge?  A.  I  should  not  want  to  express  an  opinion 
as  to  the  quality  of  that  iron  without  very  careful  examination.  I 
can  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  quality  of  the  welding,  but  not  of  the 
iron  itself. 

Q.  Can  you  calculate  the  breaking  strain  necessary  to  sunder  those 
hangers  in  the  manner  in  which  they  were  sundered  at  the  time  they 
were  sundered,  from  their  appearance  now,  assuming  such  quality  of 
iron  as  you  choose?  A.  Do  you  n.en,  can  I  make  a  calculation  as 
to  what  will  pull  a  bad  weld  to  pieces? 

Q.  Assuming  that  what  you  have  called  fresh  breaks  are  fresh,  and 
that  what  you  have  called  old  breaks  are  ohl,  and  looking  at  the 
amount  of  fresh  material  which  parted  when  those  hangers  parted, 
can  you  compute  the  weight  that  was  necessary  to  part  them?  A. 
No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  could. 

Q.  Is  that  on  account  of  there  being  a  weld  in  it,  or  because  you 
cannot  compute  the  power  of  the  iron  which  is  broken  off,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  weld?  A.  I  don't  know  what  to  do  with  that  lop-sided 
kind  of  an  eye  on  one  side. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  lop-sided  eye  would  have  occasioned  such  a 
break  as  occurred,  any  more  than  a  stiaight  eye  would?  A.  Well,  I 
don't  know  ;  the  answer  to  that  is  mixed  up  with  the  bad  wreld.  That 
is  the  trouble. 

Q.  I  see  your  trouble  about  the  bad  weld.  Let  me  put  the  ques- 
tion perhaps  a  little  more  intelligibly.  Looking  at  the  break  as  it 
actually  occurred,  can  you  say  that  any  less  force  was  required  to 
produce  that  break  than  would  have  been  required  if  the  eye  had  been 
true  under  the  other  eye?     A.    No  ;  I  don't  know  as  I  can. 

Q.  Then  3011  cannot  say  that  the  lop-sidedness  of  that  eye  had 
anything  to  do  with  this  particular  break?  A.  No,  sir;  I  cannot 
say  that.     I  can  simply  say  I  don't  like  it. 

Q.  Can  you  not  calculate  the  strain, which  would  be  necessary  to 
part  those  pieces  of  iron  which  have  parted,  judging  as  well  as  you 
can  how  much  of  the  iron  was  acting  at  the  time  the  break  took  place 
and  how  much  was  already  gone?  A.  I  cannot,  because  of  the  fact 
that  the  part  of  it  which  is  broken  has  destroyed  the  directness  of  the 
pull ;  it  has  thrown  everything  out  of  kilter.  That  is  the  fact  about 
it.  I  can  figure  up  the  power  right  straight  through  ;  but  when  it  is 
broken  off,  there  is  the  bad  well  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  so  that  I 
don't  see  how  I  could. 

Q.  Then  the  complication  of  the  bad  well  and  the  indirect  pull 
make  it  impossible  for  you  to  calculate  the  breaking  strain  of  that 
iron  as  it  stood  before  the  accident?     A.    Yes. 

<,>.    Suppose,  Professor   Vose,    that  those    hangers    were  the  first 


APPENDIX.  259 

things  to  go  and  that  they  broke  under  the  weight  of  the  engine,  can 
you  explain  how  three  ears  could  have  got  over  on  to  the  abutment 
under  a  sufficient  check  in  their  speed  to  create  such  a  telescoping  as 
the  evidence  shows  before  the  brilge  went  down?  A.  No;  I  can't 
explain  it  at  all. 

Q.  Is  it,  then,  in  your  judgment,  possible  that  those  hangers  should 
have  given  way  under  the  engine,  in  view  of  the  events  which  subse- 
quently occurred,  especially  the  getting  over  of  those  three  cars? 
A.  I  don't  know  when  they  got  over.  They  evidently  got  over  some- 
how. Whether  it  was  under  the  check  of  the  engine  or  not  I  don't 
know.  The  engine  may  have  come  within  five  hundred  pounds  of 
breaking  those  hangers  off,  substantially  done  the  damage,  and  left 
the  actual  break  to  come  afterwards.  That  is  not  an  uncommon 
thing. 

Q.  Whenever  those  things  did  give  way,  what,  in  your  judgment, 
must  have  been  the  immediate  result?  A.  Well,  that  lets  the  floor 
down  and  everything  on  it. 

Q.  And  at  a  speed  of  ten,  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour  could 
anything  have  got  on  to  the  abutment  which  was  over  these  hangers 
that  broke?     A.    No;  I  think  not. 

Q.  I  understand  you,  then,  that  the  breaking  of  these  hangers 
would  let  down  the  end  of  the  floor  beam,  that  would  let  down  the 
outer  end  of  the  northern  stringer  and  the  northern  end  of  the  next 
stringer,  leaving  a  gap  of  something  like  fifty  feet  wholly  unsup- 
ported?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Could  that  gap,  in  your  judgment,  be  shot  by  any  car  going 
twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour?     A.    I  should  say  not,  decidedly. 

Q.  Then  you  would  agree  that  whatever  might  have  caused  the 
breaking  down  of  this  bridge  it  was  not  the  snapping  of  those  hangers 
by  the  weight  of  the  engine  and  tender  ?  A.  No  ;  I  don't  say  that .  I 
say  the  engine,  being  the  heaviest  load,  may  have  crippled  those 
things  so  that,  while  they  would  stand  up  for  a  little  while,  pretty 
soon  they  went  down.  Very  often  a  locomotive  with  a  heavy  train  of 
cars  goes  over  a  bridge  all  right,  and  soon  after  a  very  light  train  comes 
along  and  the  bridge  goes  down.  It  was  really  the  heavy  train  that 
did  the  damage.  I  can  conceive  that  those  links  wore  crippled  so 
that  they  were  all  ready  to  go,  and  when  the  next  train  came  along 
they  did  go. 

Q.  When  those  links  did  go,  they  went  down  all  at  once,  didn't 
they,  by  their  appearance  now?  A.  I  don't  know.  What  do  you 
mean  by  "  all  at  once  "  ? 

Q.    I  mean,  the  floor  did  not  settle  gradually?     A.    No,  sir. 
Q.    Thai  is,  the  links  did  not  pull  slowly  apart,  gradually  lengthen- 
ing?    A.    No. 


260  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  But  gave  way  at  once?  A.  Yes;  the}' would  give  way  pretty 
quick. 

Q.  So  that  if  this  breaking  of  the  links  caused  auy  settling  of  the 
floor  at  all,  it  would  cause  an  entire  collapse  of  the  floor,  wouldn't  it? 
A.    I  should  think  pretty  quick. 

Q.  Now,  if  those  links  gave  way,  and  they  were  the  first  things 
that  gave  way,  and  the  floor  sank  instantly  at  the  point  where  they 
hung  from  the  upper  chord,  can  you  imagine  how  any  telescoping  of 
the  train  could  have  occurred,  or  any  portion  of  the  train  which  had 
not  passed  that  point  could  have  got  up  on  the  abutment?  A.  No, 
sir ;  I  can't  see  how  it  could  have  got  up  on  the  abutment. 

Q.  Can  you,  then,  account  for  the  accident  as  it  is  shown  to  have 
happened?  A.  No;  I  can't  account  for  the  accident  as  it  is  shown 
to  have  happened  at  all.  I  cannot  explain  how  any  one  of  those  cars 
came  where  it  was  found,  nor  how  any  part  of  the  bridge  came  where 
it  was  found.     It  was  the  most  everlasting  snarl  I  ever  saw. 

Q.  Supposing  that  something  which  we  do  not  know  about  had 
happened,  and  b}'  some  cause  the  first  car  had  got  derailed  just  at  the 
abutment,  and  the  second  car,  having  its  trucks  broken  out  from 
under  it,  had  been  brought  suddenly  to  a  stand,  and  the  third  car, 
driven  bjT  the  weight  of  the  train,  had  telescoped  with  the  second  car, 
the  engine  pulling  away  when  the  obstruction  occurred,  and  that  then 
the  fourth  or  fifth  car  had  struck  that  angle  block  violently,  would  not 
that,  in  your  judgment,  have  knocked  the  truss  down  and  torn  those 
links  out?  A.  Well,  I  am  sure  I  don't  know.  That  is  a  kind  of 
complex  question.  It  wouldn't  do  any  bridge  any  good  for  a  derailed 
car  to  hit  that  angle  block.     I  can  say  that  fast  enough. 

Q.  Is  it  not  your  judgment  that  if  a  derailed  car  had  hit  that 
angle  block  it  would  have  knocked  it  right  out  and  let  it  down? 
A.  I  don't  know  that  it  would,  if  the  lateral  bracing  had  held  all 
right. 

Q.  Would  the  lateral  braces  have  held  the  truss  in  place?  A. 
Yes  ;  I  think  they  would. 

Q.  Judging  of  that  bridge  from  what  you  see  of  its  construction, 
should  you  think  the  angle  block  would  have  stood  a  violent  blow 
from  a  derailed  car  without  going  out  of  place?  A.  No;  I  don't 
think  it  would  have  stood  much  of  a  blow.  If  I  recollect  right,  the 
lateral  bracing  was  fastened  on  to  some  lugs  on  the  casting.  At  the 
same  time,  I  am  not  quite  sure  about  that.  I  have  given  the  opinion 
that  the  lateral  bracing  was  all  attached  merely  to  the  top  chord. 

Q.  There  would  be  no  lateral  braces  attached  to  the  angle  block, 
at  any  rate,  would  there  ?  A.  It  seems  to  me  in  getting  out  these 
links  we  had  to  cut  oh"  some  lateral  braces  which  did  come  through 


APPENDIX.  261 

and  were  attached  to  that  angle  block.     I  am  not  quite  sure  about  it, 
but  I  think  that  is  the  way. 

Q.  The  truss  would  have  been  as  likely  to  have  been  knocked  down 
by  a  blow  on  the  angle  block  as  by  a  blow  anywhere  else,  would  it 
not?  A.  Well,  I  don't  know.  If  the  lateral  bracing  held  all  right, 
so  that  the  truss  was  kept  steady  sidewise,  you  might  hit  it  a  con- 
siderable blow  without  knocking  that  truss  down  ;  but  if  you  got  the 
floor  out  first,  then  it  would  take  a  precious  small  blow  to  knock  the 
thing  down. 

Q.  But  with  those  hangers  as  weak  as  you  say  they  were,  and  with 
the  weight  of  that  train  on  the  floor  beam  and  a  violent  blow  against 
the  angle  block,  would  not  that  cause  a  rending  strain  which  would 
tear  those  hangers  apart  at  the  same  time  the  bridge  went  over? 
A.  I  cannot  answer  that  question  unless  you  give  me  some  pretty 
definite  information.  I  can  guess  that  a  heavy  blow  somewhere  would 
do  harm  somewhere,  but  I  cannot  say  that  those  hangers  would  be 
broken  by  an  imaginary  cause  unless  I  know  the  conditions  pretty 
well. 

Q.  Taking  the  condition  of  the  hangers  as  you  say  they  must  have 
been  before  the  disaster,  and  the  construction  of  the  bridge,  which  I 
understand  you  know,  with  the  weight  of  the  train  on  one  end  of  the 
floor  beam,  the  other  end  of  the  train  resting  on  the  abutment,  and 
the  weight  of  the  train  then  being  thrown  by  a  violent  blow  against 
this  angle  block,  I  ask  you  if  the  effect  of  that  blow  would  not  be  to 
drive  the  angle  block  and  truss  one  way,  and  would  not  the  weight  of 
the  train  force  the  floor  beam  through  and  so  part  those  hangers,  in 
their  weak  condition?  A.  I  don't  know.  I  should  think  that  might 
happen.     That  is  all  I  can  say  about  it. 

Q.  In  other  words,  those  broken  hangers  might  simply  be  a  part  of 
the  disaster,  and  not  the  cause  of  the  disaster?  A.  If  they  had 
been  whole  and  good  hangers  1  don't  think  any  blow  such  as  you 
speak  of  would  have  broken  thorn. 

Q.  I  presume  not.  If  they  had  been  whole  and  good  hangers  the 
derailed  train  would  have  gone  right  over  the  bridge,  would  it  not,  as 
it  did  in  Vermont  the  other  day,  without  knocking  it  down?  A. 
Yes  ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Is  it  not  to  your  mind  more  probable  that  those  hangers  gave 
way  in  some  such  way  as  I  have  described  with  the  bridge,  and  after 
the  first  two  or  three  cars  had  gone  over,  than  that  they  parted  before 
the  first  two  or  three  cars  had  got  over?  A.  I  can't  tell,  I  am  sure, 
whether  it  is  more  probable  or  not. 

Q.  Have  you  not  already  said  that  yon  cannot  conceive  of  any  way 
whereby  the  first  two  or  three  cars  could  get  over?  A.  Yes  ;  I  do  say 
that  I  cannot  conceive  how  two  or  three  cars  could  get  over. 


262  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  You  cannot  conceive  of  such  a  blow  leaving  the  bangers  in  their 
present  condition?     A.   I  don't  think  it  would  do  them  an}'  good. 

Q.  Well,  one  is  conceivable  and  the  other  inconceivable,  isn't  it,  to 
your  mind?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Taking  that  drawing  of  that  hanger,  with 
those  elements  in  it,  could  you  not  calculate  what  the  strength  of  that 
would  be?  A.  You  mean,  if  it  was  a  good  weld  and  good  material? 
Q.  Yes;  good  weld  and  good  material.  And  whether  it  would  be 
a  suitable  piece  of  iron  to  put  into  the  bridge  in  the  position  in  which 
it  was?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  could  tell  what  the  strain  on  the 
different  parts  of  that  would  be  or  not.  It  is  going  to  be  more  on  one 
side  of  the  bar  than  it  is  on  the  other.  It  is  not  an  easy  thing  to 
figure  upon  it.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  I  could  figure  upon  it 
and  give  you  an  exact  result.  I  could  do  it  easily  enough  if  this  bend 
was  under  the  other,  but  when  you  put  it  off  one  side  three  inches  or 
so,  I  don't  know  whether  I  could  tell  you  just  what  the  strain  is  there 
or  not.     I  should  have  to  think  of  that  a  good  while. 

Q.  Are  you  willing  to  try  to  make  some  figures  on  that  proposition  ? 
A.  I  will,  if  you  will  give  me  Sunday  to  do  it ;  only  I  may  bring  you  in 
some  differential  calculus  ;  I  may  bring  you  in  the  theory  of  probabili- 
ties. I  will  give  you  something  you  cannot  understand.  I  will  agree 
to  do  that. 

Q.  All  we  care  about  is  the  result.  Of  course  we  do  not  care  about 
any  figures,  unless  you  can  arrive  at  something  that  seems  satisfactory 
to  your  own  mind.  A.  I  can  tell  you  at  the  start  that  I  cannot  do 
that. 

Q.  Was  it  necessary  to  put  hangers  of  that  sort  into  this  bridge? 
A.    No,  sir ;  it  was  not. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  in  the  bridge  that  necessitated  that  those 
centres  should  not  be  under  each  other?  A.  No  ;  I  don't  see  that 
there  was. 

Q.  If  it  had  been  necessary  to  bring  those  centres  three  inches  out 
of  line,  as  the}'  are,  how  would  you  have  constructed  the  iron  so  as  to 
be  in  your  opinion  safe?  A.  I  will  show  you  how.  I  would  have 
had  a  great  big  fiat  link,  about  a  foot  wide,  to  cover  all  imaginary 
cases;  then  I  would  have  cut  my  holes  where  I  had  a  mind  to.  I 
should  have  wasted  a  great  deal  of  material.  I  would  have  done  it  by 
brute  force  and  stupidity.  I  would  not  have  made  it  a  subject  of 
computation.  I  would  have  put  in  ten  times  more  iron  than  ought  to 
have  been  there,  probably,  but  I  would  have  fixed  it  so  that  it  would 
not  have  broken.     You  see  the  point. 

Q.  Could  you  have  got  that  into  the  angle  block?  A.  I  don't 
know  about  that,  I  am  sure.  That  angle  block  was  fearfully  and 
wonderfully  made. 


APPENDIX.  263 

Q.  Would  you  have  made  the  iron  to  conform  to  the  angle  block, 
or  the  angle  block  to  conform  to  the  necessities  of  the  iron?  A.  I 
would  not  have  had  it  there  to  cover  those  things  up.  That  is  what 
I  would  not  have  done. 

Q.  Could  you  have  got  along  with  that  sort  of  a  bridge  without  an 
angle  block  that  wonld  cover  thein  up  ?  A.  Yes,  I  suppose  you  could. 
You  might  have  had  your  pair  of  links  outside  the  whole  thing. 

Q.  Would  there  have  been  any  objection  to  that?  A.  You  might 
have  had  to  make  the  pins  a  little  bigger,  but  you  would  have  had 
them  all  out-doors,  where  you  could  see  them. 

Q  Supposing  the  hangers  gave  way  or  began  to  give  way  when  the 
engine  passed  over  them,  and  the  bridge  had  begun  to  fall  when  the 
engine  got  on  to  the  abutment,  there  is  this  support  here  some  dis- 
tance from  the  abutment?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  That  would  not  give  way  necessarily  at  the  same  moment  that 
the  hangers  gave  way?     A.    No. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  Grst  effect,  then,  upon  the  bridge  of  those 
hangers  giving  way?  A.  Well,  the  floor  would  go  down  right 
through  and  I  should  expect  that  angle  block  to  be  shoved  out  of  place 
sidewise. 

Q.  And  what  would  happen  to  this  post  here?  A.  I  don't  know,  I 
am  sure,  what  would  happen  t$  that. 

Q.  One  end  of  the  stringer  would  be  supported  at  the  centre  of  the 
truss,  wouldn't  it?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  the  north  end  of  that  stringer  would  have  lost  its  support? 
A.   Yes. 

Q.  And  the  south  end  of  the  stringer  that  goes  from  the  north 
abutment  would  have  lost  its  support?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  supposing  the  engine  is  on  the  abutment  and  the  first  car 
of  the  train  is  coming  over,  when  its  front  end  is  at  the  abutment  its 
rear  end  is  where?  When  the  front  end  of  the  first  car  is  at  the  point 
where  the  west  track  meets  the  abutment,  where  would  be  the  rear  end 
of  the  car?     A.    I  don't  remember  how  long  the  cars  are. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Call  them  fifty  feet. 

The  Witness.     I  don't  know  what  the  dimensions  are  here. 

Q.  Then,  when  you  said  that  it  was  impossible  for  those  cars  to 
get  across,  you  did  not  know  how  much  of  a  chasm  they  would  have  to 
jump,  did  you?  A.  I  saw  it  was  a  pretty  big  one.  It  is  from  that 
post  to  the  middle. 

Q.  Supposing  that  it  turns  out  that  at  the  time  when  one  car  is  on 
the  abutment,  the  next  car  is  unsupported  and  the  car  behind  is  on 
the  southern  part  of  the  bridge,  how  much  would  the  second  car  fall? 
Would  it  break  away  from  the  car  on  the  abutment  and  from  the  car 
on  the  bridge,  or  would  the  Miller  platform  support  it?    A.   The 


264  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Miller  platform  would  do  all  that  is  expected  of  it,  and  that  is  a  good 
deal ;  it  is  a  good  thing ;  but  I  don't  know,  I  ain  sure,  whether  the 
Miller  platform  is  up  to  that  or  not. 

Q.    You  don't  know  about  that?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  don't. 

Q.  So  you  are  not  sure  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  it  to  be  car- 
ried over?  A.  I  don't  know  about  getting  a  ear  over  there.  I  said 
I  thought  an  engine  would  drop  through.  I  don't  think  that  you 
could  get  an  engine  over  there  ;  I  dou't  know  about  a  car ;  they  go 
over  almost  anything. 

Q.  Now,  if  a  car  was  between  this  abutment  and  the  centre  of  the 
bridge,  supported  by  the  Miller  platform  of  the  rear  car  and  by  the 
car  in  front,  it  would  nevertheless  have  dropped  somewhat  below  that 
abutment,  would  it  not?     A.    I  think  so  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Its  truck  would  naturally  strike  the  edge  of  the  abutment, 
would  it  not?  A.  Yes.  This  is  all  guess-work.  I  should  think  it 
might. 

Q.  Then  that  would  give  it  a  sudden  stop,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes  ; 
I  think  it  would. 

Q.  And  the  rest  of  the  train  coming  on  in  the  rear  would  bump 
into  it  behind  very  hard  ?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  When  the  first  car  got  pushed  part  way  up  on  to  the  abutment, 
the  second  car  coming  along  would  bem  about  this  position,  would  it 
not?     A.    I  can  conceive  that;  yes. 

Q.  Then  the  weight  of  the  train  pushing  them  on  would  push  that 
one  over  and  this  car  would  strike  against  the  abutment  so,  would  it 
not?  A.  I  don't  know.  I  think  we  are  getting  into  the  region  of 
guess-work  now. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  position  of  those  cars  on  the  abutment?  A.  I 
diil.  I  did  not  look  at  them  to  make  out  their  positions  at  all.  I  did 
not  care  anything  about  it. 

Q.   They  were  off  of  the  abutment?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  reason  of  the  second  car  being  telescoped  into 
the  third  car  and  both  cars  losing  their  trucks?  A.  I  should  say 
something  pushing  behind. 

Q.  What  made  them  lose  their  trucks?  A.  I  should  think  some- 
thing must  have  torn  the  trucks  out  from  under  them. 

Q.  What  made  the  third  car  lose  its  trucks  in  the  street?  A.  I 
don't  know. 

Q.  Was  the  third  car  when  it  went  on  to  the  abutment  on  a  level 
with  the  abutment,  or  was  it  below  the  level  of  the  abutment?  A.  I 
don't  know. 

Q.  Was  the  bodj'  of  the  fourth  car,  when  its  top  went  on  to  the 
abutment,  on  a  level  with  the  abutment?  A.  I  don't  know.  I  did 
not  look  at  any  of  those  things. 


APPENDIX.  265 

Q.  Do  yon  feel  confident  that  it  might  not  have  happened  in  that 
way  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  can't  say  that  it  did  not.  I  don't  know  any- 
thing about  it. 

Q.  You  said  you  had  some  conversation  with  Mr.  Hewins  about 
this  bridge  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  from  him  anything  of  the  details  of  the  bridge? 
A.  No,  sir.  I  wanted  to,  but  I  didn't.  I  came  in  with  him  on  Mon- 
day night  from  the  wreck.  He  told  me  if  I  would  call  at  his  house 
on  Tremont  Street  on  my  way  out  Tuesday  morning  he  would  hunt 
up  all  the  drawings  he  had.  He  didn't  have  many.  He  had  the 
strain  sheets  of  the  different  compression  members  of  the  truss,  which 
I  didn't  care  anything  about.  He  thought  the  details  must  have 
been  left  at  the  shop  where  the  bridge  was  made.  He  did  not  have 
the  details  that  would  show  me  what  the  construction  of  the  bri'lge 
was. 

Adjourned  to  Monday,  March  28. 


TENTH     DAY. 

Monday,  March  28,  1887. 

The  hearing  was  rpsumed  at  10.45  a.  m. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Before  going  on  this  morning,  I  will  put  in  Mr.  Par- 
ker's bid  in  December,  1875,  for  completing  the  bridge  with  another 
truss  similar  to  the  one  which  was  in  already,  in  which  he  says :  "  I 
will  build  the  duplicate  truss  for  the  other  half  of  the  Bussey  bridge 
and  put  it  in  place,  with  all  the  necessary  cross  bracing,  the  whole  to 
your  satisfaction,  for  the  sum  of  $3,180,  your  company  to  receive  the 
iron  at  Boston  depot  and  transport  free,  and  also  transport  free  the 
workmen  and  tools.  Yours  truly,  C.  II.  Parker,  National  Bridge  and 
Iron  Works."  I  also  have  a  note  here  dated  Nov.  13,  187G,  from 
Mr.  George  Folsom  to  Mr.  Richards,  asking  for  the  weight  of  the 
engines  used  in  testing  the  Bussey  bridge,  and  beneath  it  a  memoran- 
dum by  Mr.  Richards  giving  the  weight  of  the  two  engines  with  their 
tenders,  —  the  William  Raymond  Lee,  with  its  tender,  109,900  pounds  ; 
and  of  the  Moses  B.  Ives,  with  its  tender,  121,330  pounds.  That  is 
a  record  of  the  test  made  when  the  bridge  was  put  up.  I  should  say 
I  bring  this  note  from  Mr.  Folsom  because  I  understand  he  is  still  too 
ill  to  be  present  himself,  and  I  ask  the  commissioners  to  take  these 
memoranda  for  what  they  are  worth,  in  his  absence. 


2GG  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Prof.  George  L.  Vose  —  resumed. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Have  you  rend  the  testimony  given  by  the 
engineer  and  the  fireman,  Mr.  White  and  Mr.  Billings?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
I  have  not. 

Q.  Mr.  White  and  Mr.  Billings  both  said  that  when  they  got  on 
to  the  Boston  end  of  the  bridge  they  heard  a  snap,  and  then  the 
hinder  part  of  the  engine  settled  a  few  inches,  and  they  went  up  on  to 
the  bank.  Now,  if  those  hangers  there  (referring  to  photograph)  had 
broken  just  as  they  got  there,  would  it  have  been  likely  to  cause  a 
snap  sufficiently  loud  for  those  men  to  have  heard  it?  If  those  hang- 
ers had  broken  just  at  that  moment,  in  your  opinion  would  it  have 
been  likeby  to  have  made  such  a  noise  that  those  two  men  would  have 
heard  it,  as  they  say  they  did?  Both  agree  to  that.  A.  I  can  con- 
ceive that  they  might  have  heard  it.  A  piece  of  iron  under  so  great 
tension  as  that  might  go  off  like  a  pistol.  I  should  think  they  might 
have  heard  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Those  are  drawings  of  the  rails  running 
from  a  point  between  five  and  six  feet  southerly  of  that  broken  hanger 
block  on  to  the  abutment,  and  this  is  the  abutment,  where  the  line  of 
the  abutment  would  come.  Now,  do  the  bends  in  those  rails  suggest 
anything  to  you  as  to  the  nature  of  the  accident?  A.  Are  these  the 
two  parallel  rails? 

Q.  Those  are  the  two  rails  that  were  parallel.  This  rail  is  broken 
here,  and  those  are  horizontal  bends.  The  rails  were  not  bent  much 
out  of  a  horizontal  line.  Both  were  torn  out  completely  by  the  acci- 
dent. A.  Well,  it  is  an  incomprehensible  kind  of  a  looking  thing  as 
it  stands  there.  It  don't  convey  any  idea  to  me  now.  It  looks  to  me 
as  if  they  had  been  bodily  shoved  in  that  way,  puckered  up  ;  but 
whether  that  was  a  part  of  the  cause  of  the  accident  or  an  effect  I 
don't  know. 

The  Chairman.     That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  arrive  at. 

Mr.  Vose.  I  can't  enlighten  you  on  that  at  all.  I  can't  give  you 
anything  at  all  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  (To  Mr.  Piiilbrick:.)  The  ends  of  these  rails 
would  come  opposite  each  other,  as  I  understand,  if  the  rails  were 
straightened  out? 

Mr.  Piiilbrick.     Yes,  sir  ;  they  are  both  the  same  length. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  not  a  broken  joint ;  they  are  both  the 
same  length? 

Mr.  Vose.  I  cannot  say,  where  there  has  been  so  much  driving 
and  wrenching  by  the  cars.     It  would  be  mere  guess-work,  if  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  succeed  in  making  any  figures  with  regard  to  these 
hangers?     A.    No,  sir.     I    did   not   think  when   I  went   away  you 


APPENDIX.  267 

wanted  it;  but  still,  if  you  insist  on  having  sonic  figures  on  those 
hangers,  I  will  make  them  for  you,  but  I  guarantee  when  they  conic 
here  the\-  won't  convey  any  idea.  It  is  one  of  those  indeterminate 
things,  where  we  have  got  to  start  by  guessing  at  our  premises  and 
work  along  through  very  devious  methods,  and  come  out  nowhere  in 
particular,  I  am  afraid. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well,  then,  if  it  will  not  throw  any  light 
upon  the  question,  we  will  not  pursue  it. 

Mr.  Vose.  I  do  not  think  it  will  a  particle.  I  would  be  glad  to 
do  it  if  it  would. 

Q.  If  you  had  been  called  to  examine  that  bridge  when  it  was  first 
built,  —  that  truss,  —  what  would  have  been  your  report  in  regard  to 
it?  A.  Well,  if  I  had  seen  those  hangers  before  they  were  put  in,  as 
near  as  I  can  judge  now  by  those  that  were  n  <t  broken,  I  should  say 
that  was  very  poor  iron  work,  and  I  shouldn't  have  put  them  in.  In 
the  next  place,  I  should  object  entirely  to  the  connection  between  the 
cast-iron  angle  block  and  the  brace  on  the  top  chord. 

Q.  As  far  as  the  hangers  themselves  are  concerned,  is  it  probable 
that  those  poor  welds  showed  when  they  were  first  put  in?  A.  From 
those  that  are  not  broken,  it  looks  to  me  that  the  bad  work  must  have 
shown.  You  can't  quite  tell  ;  but  those  are  not  very  badly  out  of 
shape,  those  two,  —  one  is  brokeu,  but  not  very  badly..  It  looks  to 
me  like  very  bad  work,  and  I  can't  see  why  it  didn't  always  look  so. 

Q.  What  would  you  have  said  in  regard  to  the  strength  of  them, 
provided  they  had  appeared  to  be  good  iron?  A.  I  should  have 
objected  first  to  that  eccentric  position  of  the  lower  loop.  I  wouldn't 
have  had  it  there.  I  wouldn't  have  let  it  gone  into  the  bridge  at  all. 
I  think  there  is  iron  enough  in  the  middle  of  that  bar,  without  any 
figuring.  There  is  no  question,  if  it  had  been  a  good  straight  pull 
on  a  good  piece  of  fibrous  iron,  that  that  bar  in  the  middle  — 
I  will  venture  the  opinion  without  any  figuring  —  is  plenty  big- 
enough. 

Q.  Was  the  pull  on  the  centre  of  the  bar  straight  or  not  straight? 
A.    On  the  centre  part  of  the  link? 

Q.  Yes,  between  the  links  ?  A.  It  would  get  straight  after  a  while  ; 
just  where  I  do  not  know.  It  starts  off  by  being  very  much  one-sided 
at  the  bottom  ;  somewhere  after  it  got  into  the  bar,  I  do  not  know 
just  where,  it  would  be  straight. 

Q.  One  of  these  broke  in  the  bar?  A.  Yes;  but  there  is  a  bad 
weld.  I  was  assuming  the  weld  was  good  and  everything  was 
good. 

Q.  Would  the  strain  have  been  a  straight  strain  at  the  point  where 
that  one  is  broken?  Could  it  have  been  a  straight  strain?  A.  No; 
I  do  not  think  it  would  be  down  there.     I  think  up  in  the  middle  of 


268  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

the  bar,  somewhere  near  the  middle  of  the  length,  the  strain  might 
have  got  pulled  down  to  where  it  ought  to  have  been. 

().  Would  the  strain  have  been  more  oblique  the  nearer  3-011  got  to 
the  lower  line?     A.    Yes,  sir;   I  should  think  so. 

Mr.  Vose.  I  want  to  say  a  word  to  Mr.  Putnam,  if  I  ma}-  be 
allowed,  with  regard  to  one  of  his  questions.  (To  Mr.  Putnam  ) 
You  asked  me  if  the  train  went  off  and  struck  that  cast-iron  angle 
block  on  top,  if  it  would  not  give  a  bad  wrench  and  a  bad  blow  on 
these  hangers.  I  told  you  I  did  not  know.  I  did  not,  and  do  not. 
But  you  must  look  out  that  you  are  not  trying  to  lift  yourself  up  by 
the  straps  of  3-our  boots  in  asking  that  question.  Put  it  in  this  way. 
Suppose  that  rail  (referring  to  rail  in  front  of  the  commissioners)  is 
the  top  chord  of  the  bridge.  Suppose  you  hang  a  basket  under  that 
with  a  loop  made  of  rope.  Now,  let  me  get  into  that  basket  and  hold 
a  hundred  pound  weight  in  my  hand,  and  lean  over  and  drop  it  on  to 
that  chord.  What  does  it  do  to  the  rope?  Why,  it  takes  off  just  a 
hundred  pounds  from  the  strain.  Instead  of  hurting  it,  it  does  it  good. 
It  is  well  to  bear  that  in  mind.  I  do  not  know  how  oblique  the  strain 
may  be,  but  remember  you  are  standing  on  the  floor  system,  which  is 
suspended  from  the  chord,  and  giving  a  blow  to  the  top  of  the  chord, 
not  to  the  bottom  of  the  chord  ;  and  it  may  be  that  the  whole  force  of 
that  IiLjw  will  simpby  be  to  relieve  3'our  links  instead  of  bringing  any 
extra  strain  on  them. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  My  question,  Mr.  Vose,  was  whether,  with 
the  weight  of  the  cars  on  the  end  of  the  floor  beam,  the  other  end 
being  on  the  abutment,  a  blow  from  one  of  the  cars  striking  that  angle 
block  would  not  have  a  tendency  to  drive  the  angle  block  to  the  west- 
ward, and  at  the  same  time  the  weight  of  the  car  would  have  a  ten- 
dency to  hold  the  floor  beam  toward  the  eastward ;  and  whether 
those  two  tendencies  would  not  have  a  further  tendency  to  break 
those  links?  A.  I  cannot  quite  answer  that  question,  because  the 
weight  you  put  on  your  chord  you  have  taken  off  of  your  floor  beam 
to  put  it  on  there. 

Q.  Not  necessarily,  would  you?  A.  Why  not?  Where  else  could 
you  get  it? 

Q.  A  blow  from  the  point  of  one  of  the  cars,  with  the  force  derived 
from  the  pressure  of  all  the  cars  behind,  would  not  take  the  weight  of 
the  train  off  that  floor  beam,  would  it?  A.  It  would  take  whatever 
}-ou  put  on  the  chord  off  of  it. 

Q.  If  the  blow  is  sidewise  against  the  angle  block,  would  it  lift  the 
wreight  of  the  train?     A.    Not  if  it  is  sidewise. 

Q.  It  is  a  sidewise  blow  I  am  speaking  of.  A.  I  thought  3-ou  were 
speaking  of  the  corner  knocked  off  on  top. 

Q.    But  it  is  a  sidewise  blow  driving  the  angle  block  to  the  west- 


APPENDIX.  269 

ward,  while  the  weight  of  the  train  holds  the  floor  beam  towards  the 
eastward  ;  would  not  that  have  a  tendency  to  wrench  those  hangers? 
A.  Give  me  all  the  conditions,  which  you  have  not  done  yet.  I  do 
not  know  whether  it  would  or  not,  until  I  know  what  that  sidewise 
blow  is  reacting  against.  The  action  and  reaction  were  in  that  bridge 
the  same  as  everywhere  else.  You  must  have  some  point  from  which 
to  strike  your  blow. 

Q.  My  question  supposed  the  vertical  force  of  the  cars  upon  the 
floor  beam,  and  a  force  at  right  angles  to  that  and  horizontal  in  the 
shape  of  a  blow  against  the  side  of  the  truss  at  the  point  where 
the  angle  block  connected  the  truss.  A.  You  mean,  if  you  can  give 
the  blow  without  removing  any  of  the  vertical  force? 

Q.  Without  removing  the  vertical  pressure  on  the  floor  beam.  A. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  what  }'ou  would  give  a  wrench  sidewise,  I 
should  say. 

Q.  And  such  a  blow  as  that  would  have  a  tendency  to  break  those 
hangers,  would  it  not?  A.  I  don't  know  whether  it  would  or  not. 
These  two  pins  were  at  right  angles,  and  it  may  simply  have  swung 
them  on  one  of  the  pins  without  wrenching  them. 

Q.  It  might,  but  that  would  depend  on  how  the  angle  block  rested 
on  the  floor  beam,  would  it  not?  If  the  end  of  the  floor  beam  pro- 
jected beyond  the  angle  block,  it  could  not  turn  over  the  end  of  the 
floor  beam,  could  it?     A.    I  do  not  understand. 

Q.  I  will  make  a  drawing.  Now,  looking  at  that  drawing,  would 
not  a  .violent  lateral  blow  against  that  angle  block,  at  the  same  time 
that  the  weight  of  the  train  is  on  the  end  of  the  floor  beam,  have  a 
tendency  to  wrench  that  hanger?  A.  Where  are  you  going  to  apply 
your  blow,  —  to  the  casting? 

Q.  Yes,  to  the  casting.  The  idea  I  have  in  nvy  mind  is  that  when 
this  train  was  derailed  a  corner  of  the  front  end  of  one  of  the  cars 
struck  that  violent  blow  at  the  same  time  that  the  weight  of  the  train 
remained  on  the  bridge  ;  remember,  also,  that  the  blow  was  struck, 
and  that  the  bridge  came  to  pieces.  A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  remember  those 
facts. 

Q.  And  that  the  bridge  did  not  go  to  pieces  until  the  blow  was 
struck ;  that  the  floor  system  may  have  gone  before,  but  the  bridge 
did  not  go  to  pieces  until  that  blow  was  struck? 

The  Chairman.     That  you  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  am  assuming  th.it  in  the  question.  A.  Now,  look 
here  ;  if  you  strike  ever  so  hard  a  blow  there,  what  is  to  prevent  that 
simply  turning  on  that  pin  as  a  centre? 

Q.  All  I  asked,  Mr.  Vose,  was  whether  it  would  not  have  a  ten- 
dency to  wrench  that  casting?  A.  Yes  ;  it  would  have  a  tendency  to 
do  it. 


270  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Coukl  it  turn  on  the  pin  as  I  have  drawn  it  there?  A.  No;  it 
could  not  without  breaking  off  a  corner  of  the  casting,  as  you  have 
drawn  it  there. 

Q.  Very  well,  and  an  iron  hanger,  in  the  condition  those  are, 
would  be  likely  to  break  before  it  would  break  off  anything  of  that 
corner,  would  it  not?  A.  There  is  some  pretty  poor  cast  iron  here, 
I  believe,  somewhere. 

Q.  True  ;  but  there  would  be  no  blow  on  that  part  of  the  casting, 
but  only  a  pressure?  A.  Suppose  you  hit  that  ever  so  hard  on  the 
side,  and  the  bearing  on  the  floor  beam  is  enough  to  keep  it  steady, 
then  what? 

Q.  Then  does  not  the  angle  block  have  a  tendency  to  turn  on  the 
lower  western  corner,  and  so  wrench  the  whole?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
docs. 

Q.    That  is  the  whole  of  my  question.     A.    Then  it  is  all  straight. 

Q.  Then  such  a  blow  as  I  have  described  by  the  corner  of  a  car 
of  a  derailed  train,  with  the  force  of  the  train  behind  it  giving  force 
to  the  blow,  and  the  weight  of  the  train  keeping  the  floor  beam  in 
place,  would  have  a  tendency  directly  to  wrench  that  hanger,  would  it 
not?     A.    I  should  think  it  might,  as  you  have  got  it  drawn  here. 

Q.  As  I  have  got  it  drawn  here,  assuming  that  my  drawing  is  sub- 
stantially correct?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Vose,  if  you  were  satisfied  that  if  the  hanger  had 
broken  first,  letting  the  whole  floor  system  down,  the  train  could  not 
have  got  across  as  it  did,  the  three  cars,  —  the  fact  that  these  hangers 
are  broken  would  not  convince  you,  would  it,  that  they  must  have  been 
the  first  things  to  give  way?  A.  I  should  rather  decide  that  they 
were  the  first  things. 

Q.  Suppose,  however,  that  that  train  had  become  derailed  at  the 
north  end  of  the  bridge  without  the  hangers  having  broken,  and  that 
the  sleepers  had  been  all  torn  to  pieces  and  the  rails  broken,  and  one 
of  the  rails  carried  up  on  to  the  bank,  and  that  in  that  state  of  things 
one  of  the  cars  had  struck  the  bridge  such  a  blow  as  I  have  described, 
and  had  knocked  down  the  biidge,  it  would  not  surprise  you  to  find 
the  hangers  broken,  would  it?     A.    ISo  ;  I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  Then  the  breaking  of  the  hangers  is  equally  consistent  with  the 
theory  that  the  floor  system  gave  way  first  and  the  bridge  afterwards, 
or  with  the  theory  that  the  bridge  and  the  floor  system  all  gave  way 
together,  is  it  not?     A.    Yes  ;  I  do  not  kn \>w  but  it  is. 

Q.  And  the  latter  theory  requires  nothing  more  to  be  added  to  the 
known  facts  than  some  cause  for  the  derailment  of  the  train?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.    While  the  other  theory  requires  you  to  suppose  that  after  fifty 


APPENDIX.  271 

feet  of  flooring  hail  dropper!  through,  three  cars  were  carried  over  it 
on  to  the  bank?  A.  No  ;  I  do  not  admit  that  at  all. 
.  Q.  "Why  not?  A.  Because,  as  I  told  you  the  other  dny,  I  can 
conceive  this  thing,  that  a  heavy  load  like  the  engine  going  over  theie 
should  take  the  life  all  out  of  these  links  without  actually  separating 
them,  but  they  would  want  a  few  small  blows  to  finish  up  the  job,  and 
it  might  have  been  the  fourth,  fifth  or  sixth  car  which  did  it.  lie- 
cause  in  such  cases  very  often  we  know  the  heavy  load  does  not  bring 
the  thing  to  pieces,  and  the  light  one  following  it  does. 

Q.  But  until  those  links  do  go,  the  fljor  system  is  perfectly  solid, 
is  it  not?  A.  If  you  call  it  perfectly  solid  with  bad  welding  and  all 
that. 

Q.  I  mean  to  say,  there  is  no  yielding  or  shaking  or  giving  way  of 
the  floor  system  until  those  links  go?     A.    No. 

Q.  When  those  links  went,  they  went  all  at  once,  did  they  not? 
"When  the  final  break  came  those  links  didn't  sctile  gradually,  but 
went  all  at  once,  did  they  not?     A.    I  guess  that  is  so. 

Q.  Then,  whenever  those  links  went,  the  floor  beam  which  rested 
on  them,  and  the  two  stringers,  about  fifty  feet  in  length,  which  rested 
on  the  floor  beam,  went  right  down  at  once,  did  they  not?  A.  I 
should  think  so. 

Q.  With  nothing  but  gravity  substantially  to  hold  them?  A.  That 
is  all. 

Q.    And  a  train  of  cars  on  top?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  then,  if  that  was  the  way  the  thing  happened,  you  have 
got  to  asceitain,  have  you  not,  how  three  cars  jumped  over  that  place 
with  the  floor  gone,  as  you  put  it?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Can  yon  imagine  what  could  have  carried  those  three  cars  over 
after  those  hangers  had  given  way,  and  that  floor  beam  had  gone? 
A.    No  ;  I  cannot. 

Q.  Can  3"on  suppose  any  force  that  could  have  done  it?  A.  No; 
no  forces  that  you  had  around  there. 

Q.  If  the  cars  were  going  before  the  accident  at  the  rate  of  fifteen 
miles  an  hour,  that  would  make  about  nineteen  feet  in  a  second,  would 
it  not?     A.    I  will  take  your  word  for  it. 

Q.  "We  will  call  it  twenty  if  it  is  more  convenient  for  calculation. 
The  stopping  of  the  second  car  and  the  telescoping  of  the  train 
against  it  would  tend  to  diminish  that  rate  of  sliced,  would  it  not? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  at  the  time  the  third  car  crossed  the  last  fifty  feet  of 
the  bridge,  it  would  probably  be  going  considerably  less  than  nineteen 
feet  a  second,  would  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

i >     And  the  length  of  a  car  is  from  fifty  to  fifty-five  feet,  so  that  it 


272  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

would  take  two  seconds  and  a  half  for  a  car  to  travel  across  that 
chasm  of  fifty  feet?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  would  take  something  like  one  second  and  a  half  for  that 
floor  beam  to  drop  on  to  the  ground  after  it  was  once  let  go  ?  A.I  say 
yes  ;  I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  how  quick  a  floor  beam  will  drop?  It  would 
drop  sixteen  feet  in  one  second,  and  forty-two  feet  in  two,  would  it  not? 
A.  It  does  not  say  in  the  philosophies  how  quick  a  floor  beam  would 
drop  held  up  there  by  a  lot  of  — 

Q.  What  is  there  to  hold  it?  I  assume  there  was  nothing  to  hold 
it;  was  there  anything  to  hold  it?  A.  I  think  there  is  a  little  differ- 
ence between  dropping  a  brick  or  a  cannon  ball,  as  they  do,  and  drop- 
ping a  floor  beam,  which  is  all  snarled  up  with  a  perfect  net- work  of 
iron  rods. 

Q.  If  it  was  all  snarled  up  with  a  net-work  of  iron  rods,  of  course 
my  question  is  not  a  fair  one  ;  I  understood  it  to  be  clear  of  every- 
thing excepting  an  I  beam  underneath  it.  At  all  events,  3-011  agree 
that  it  would  settle  so  rapidly  that  a  car,  which  it  would  take  five  sec- 
onds to  cross  that  chasm,  would  not  be  likely  to  get  over?  A.  No  ;  I 
should  think  it  would  have  pretty  hard  work  to  get  over. 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  article  in  the  "  Engineering  News,"  the  attempt 
to  explain  this  thing?     A.    No,  sir. 

•  Q.  Then  you  are  not  aware  the  writer  assumes  a  speed  of  fifty  feet 
a  second  and  a  chasm  only  twenty-eight  feet  wide  to  get  his  cars  over? 
A.    I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  figures. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  3-011  know  what  the  supporting  power 
of  a  Miller  platform  is?  A.  Do  you  mean,  if  you  couple  two  cars 
together  and  take  the  support  out  from  under? 

Q.   Yes,  from  the  middle.     A.    No  ;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Has  that  element  been  suggested  in  Mr.  Putnam's  question  to 
you?     A.    No. 

Q.  Is  it  possible  that  a  Miller  platform  might  materially  support  a 
car  in  passing  over  a  space  of  fifty-seven  feet,  the  cars  on  either  side 
being  supported,  one  on  the  embankment  and  the  other  on  a  solid 
portion  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  should  not  want  to  reckon  on  much  sup- 
port in  a  thing  of  that  kind.     It  might  help  some. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  curve  would  a  car  describe  that  was  going  at 
the  rate  of  fifteen  miles  an  hour  when  the  support  was  entirely  with- 
drawn from  it?  Would  it  drop  straight  down,  or  would  it  describe  a 
curve?     A.    It  would  describe  a  curve. 

Q.  What  would  be  that  curve?  A.  In  the  case  of  that  bridge,  or 
in  the  abstract? 

Q.  A  car  with  no  support,  a  car  going  from  the  edge  of  a  bridge 
into  a  chasm  without  any  support  at  all?     A.    Well,  primarily,  say,  a 


APPENDIX.  273 

parabola,  but  a  parabola  mixed  up  with  all  sorts  of  things  on  the  back 
of  the  car,  and  the  dragging  on  the  tracks.  If  you  throw  a  ear  bodily, 
suppose  it  to  be  a  small  body,  off  a  bridge,  it  is  plain  enough  what 
the  curve  will  be. 

Q  Can  }'ou  give  a  general  estimate  as  to  how  far  the  front  end  of 
a  car  would  fall  that  was  running  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  miles  an  hour, 
and  went  over  the  edge  of  an  embankment  or  the  edge  of  a  bridge,  — 
how  far  it  would  fall  in  fifty  feet,  say?  A.  No  ;  I  cannot  give  any 
kind  of  a  guess. 

Q.    Without  any  support  at  all?     A.    No;  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Whatever  that  curve  is,  the  fall  would  be  materially  diminished 
if  the  car  was  supported  at  either  end,  would  it  not?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  And  the  fall  would  be  lessened  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
support?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  those  things  you  have  not  estimated  upon?  A.  No,  sir ; 
not  at  all. 

Q.  And  are  you  prepared  to  say  whether  a  car  could  or  could  not 
have  been  carried  over  that  broken  portion  of  tht  bridge  by  its  im- 
petus, and  by  the  support  which  it  received  from  the  cars  on  the  abut- 
ment and  the  cars  on  the  whole  portion  of  the  bridge,  if  it  was  carried 
over  so  as  to  strike  against  the  abutment,  perhaps,  and  gradually  be 
forced  up  on  the  abutment  instead  of  dropping  into  the  street? 
A.    No  ;  I  cannot  understand  how  such  a  thing  could  be  done. 

Q.  Are  }-ou  prepared  to  say  it  could  not  be  done  ?  A.  No.  There 
are  a  good  many  things  I  saw  out  there  I  would  have  said  could  not 
have  been  done  before  they  happened. 

Q.    And  this  may  have  been  one  of  them?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  floor  system,  taking  Mr.  Putnam's  suggestion,  was 
torn  up,  if  the  train  was  off  the  track  in  going  over  that  bridge,  — 
(to  Mr.  Putnam)  I  suppose  you  assume  that  the  front  car  was  off  the 
track,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  do  not  know  that.  I  have  not  assumed  anything 
more  than  the  second  car  was.  The  first  one  did  go  off  the  track, 
however. 

The  Chairman.  That  the  sec  nd  car  went  off  the  track,  and  that 
that  piled  up  the  ties?  I  would  like  to  follow  out  your  question, 
which  was  rather  too  general,  Mr.  Putnam.  I  want  to  get  at  the 
exact  sequence  in  your  supposition  in  regard  to  it.  As  I  understood 
it,  you  supposed  that  one  of  the  front  cars,  either  the  first  or  the 
second  car.  ran  off  the  track  on  the  bridge;  that  that  piled  up  the 
th.or  timbers  somewhat  towards  the  end  of  the  bridge  — 

Mr.  Putnam.  Not  the  floor  timbers,  the  ties  ;  and  tore  up  that  rail, 
this  long  rail,  which  went  into  the  second  car ;  that  there  was  a  very 


274  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

violent  commotion  there  of  some  kind,  bringing  the  second  car  to  a 
stand,  and  bringing  the  whole  train  on  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  car  do  you  think  must  have  hit  this  angle 
block  and  thrown  it  out  of  place? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  cannot  say.  It  might  have  been  the  end  of  the 
fourth  car,  or  it  might  have  been,  as  Mr.  Folsom  thinks,  the  sixth 
car  ;  but  that  one  of  the  cars  did  strike  the  truss  and  knock  it  down, 
I  take  it  to  be  clear  on  either  theory.  The  only  question  is  whether 
the  truss  went  before  the  floor  system,  or  whether  the  floor  system 
and  the  truss  all  went  together.  My  idea  is,  if  you  would  care  to 
hear  it  — 

The  Chairman.     Yes,  I  should  like  to  hear. 

Mr.  Pctnam.  My  idea  is  that  the  only  question  we  are  considering 
here  is  whether  those  broken  hangers  were  the  cause  of  this  mischief, 
or  whether  they  were  simply  one  of  the  effects  of  it.  The  condition 
of  the  hangers  I  have  nothing  to  say  about ;  it  speaks  for  itself,  and 
the  experts  have  testified  about  it.  What  troubles  me  is  to  see  how, 
if  those  hangers  gave  wa}T  at  first,  letting  this  whole  mass,  the  whole 
floor  system,  down  for  the  space  of  fifty  feet,  the  three  cars  could 
have  got  over  as  they  did.  Because,  whatever  happened  to  cause  the 
derailment  happened  before  the  first  car  had  more  than  got  off  the 
abutment.  —  happened,  certainly,  before  the  second  car  got  off 
the  abutment,  —  for  the  first  car  was  derailed  when  it  left  the  abut- 
ment, and  whatever  caused  the  derailment  mast  have  already  hap- 
pened. The  second  car  was  brought  tea  dead  stand  just  this  side  of 
the  abutment,  or  just  this  side  of  the  end  of  the  bridge,  or  just  upon 
the  end  of  the  biidge  ;  I  am  not  particular  about  the  exact  place,  but 
somewhere  along  there  the  second  car  was  brought  to  a  dead  stand. 
That  telescoped  the  whole  train,  and  made  this  violent  commotion  on 
the  bridge.  Now,  if  the  floor  system  had  all  gone  before  that,  —  and 
I  mean  by  the  floor  system  the  floor  beams  and  the  stringers  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  ties,  —  if  the  floor  system  had  all  gone  before  that, 
I  do  not  see  how  the  first,  second  and  third  cars  could  have  got  over, 
if  the  laws  of  gravitation  continued  in  force.  But  I  can  easil}-  see 
how,  if  the  first  or  second  car  had  been  derailed  by  some  cause  which 
we  are  not  able  to  discover,  when  the  blow  came  from  the  derailed 
train,  which  undoubtedly  did  knock  this  truss  down,  it  should  also 
have  broken  these  hangers.  And  ury  argument  is,  or  the  point  that  I 
am  endeavoring  to  establish  —  not  that  I  care,  excepting  as  a  matter 
of  public  interest  —  is,  that  the  breaking  of  these  hangers  was  a  part 
of  the  smashing  of  the  bridge,  and  not  the  cause  of  the  going  down  of 
the  bridge  ;  that  the  cause  was  the  derailment  of  the  train,  and  that 
that  derailment  was  due  to  some  cause  which  we  have  not  yet  dis- 
covered. 


APPENDIX.  275 

The  Chairman.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  which  car  it  was.  We 
find  that  the  rear  truck  of  the  first  car  had  a  severe  blow  ;  that  the 
trucks  of  the  second  car  had  a  still  mire  severe  blow,  and  that  the 
second  car  was  in  some  way  suddenly  stopped,  so  that  the  rest  of 
the  train  telescoped  into  it;  that  the  trucks  of  the  third  car  dropped 
into  the  street ;  and  that  most  of  the  fourth  car  went  into  the  Btreet, 
though  the  top  went  on  to  the  embankment.  Now,  what  I  want  to 
get  at  is,  under  your  theoiy,  which  car  you  think  made  an  opening  in 
the  bridge,  knocked  the  bridge  down? 

Mr.  Putnam  If  you  ask  me  which  car  knocked  down  the  whole 
system,  the  truss,  the  floor  system  and  all,  I  should  say  it  must  have 
been  either  the  fourth,  fifth  or  sixth,  and  might  have  been  either,  for 
anything  I  am  able  to  say.  But  if  you  mean  by  the  floor  system  sim- 
ply the  timbers,  —  the  ties,  — I  have  no  doubt  that  the  ties  all  went 
to  pieces  under  the  second  car  ;  that  there  must  have  been  some  of 
them  under  the  third  car,  because  the  people  who  were  in  the  third 
car  speak  of  a  jolting,  but  that  the  ties  were  so  open  when  the  cars 
went  over  them  that  their  trucks  would  have  been  struck  by,  and  pos- 
sibly stripped  off  against,  the  abutment,  I  can  easily  understand.  My 
point  is  that  the  general  floor  system  of  that  bridge,  which  hung  upon 
those  hangers,  could  not  have  gone  until  the  third  car,  at  least,  had 
got  pretty  well  over. 

The  Chairman.     When  were  those  rails  bent? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  cannot  tell  you  that;  you  must  ask  something 
easier.  I  do  not  attempt  to  account  for  everything.  But  the  idea 
that  the  breaking  of  those  hangers  and  the  letting  down  of  that  floor 
preceded  the  getting  over  of  the  first,  second  and  third  cars  is  to  me 
inconceivable,  and  that  is  the  only  point  I  am  making.  How  those 
were  bent,  I  am  sure  I  do  not  know.  But  there  is  one  thing  certain, 
this  rail  here  was  not  bioken  by  sheering  against  the  abutment,  be- 
cause there  is  no  vertical  sheer  there  at  all.  It  was  broken  by  a  lat- 
eral bend,  and  there  is  no  doubt  it  was  broken  before  the  second  car 
got  to  it,  because  the  second  car  took  it  up  by  this  end,  —  took  up  the 
broken  part  by  this  end,  —  and  carried  it  along  in  front  of  it.  My 
belief  is  the  first  car  was  derailed  on  the  bridge,  and  that  the  sleepers 
were  pretty  well  smashed  up  before  the  second  car  got  here  ;  and  that 
the  rail  was  broken  by  the  force  exercised  by  this  ami  the  force  of  the 
second  car,  and  finally  the  end  shot  up  under  the  second  car  and  threw 
the  car  off.  But  that  the  whole  floor  system  should  have  given  way 
before  the  breaking  of  the  hangers  seems  to  me  to  be  incredible. 

The  Chairman.     I  wanted  to  understand  your  position. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  did  not  care  to  develop  or  argue  it,  or  state  it 
fully,  until  you  asked  for  it.  I  will  endeavor  to  develop  it  in  examin- 
ing the  witnesses.     And,  as  we  have  had  this  discussim,  I  hope  you 


276  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

will  allow  rae  to  say,  that  it  may  go  on  record,  that  my  interest  in  the 
matter  is  the  same  as  yours,  and  that  the  railroad  company  is  as 
anxious  to  get  at  the  facts  as  you  are,  and  not  merely  to  establish  any 
theory. 

Mr.  IIewins.  Mr.  Chairman,  ma}r  I  ask  a  few  questions  of  Pro- 
fessor Vose  ? 

The  Chairman.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hewins.)  I  have  not  seen  anything  of  the  testimon}r 
except  what  has  appeared  in  the  papers,  and  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is  quite  clear,  but  I  want  to  get  at  what  your  recollection  is  of  the 
condition  of  these  members  that  united  with  the  chord  where  this 
blow  evidently  took  place  and  overturned  the  truss?  A.  You  mean 
where  it  united  with  the  top  chord? 

Q.    Yes.     A.    It  looked  to  me  like  a  very  bad  connection. 

Q.  The  condition  of  the  members,  I  ask  about?  A.  The  condition 
after  they  fell? 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  A.  It  seemed  to  be  very  good,  as  I  recollect  it.  I 
do  not  remember  there  were  breaks  there  on  the  top  chord.  I  did  not 
notice  anything  out  of  the  way  with  them  after  they  fell. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  remember  of  seeing  the  top  chord  as  it  lay  on  the 
ground?  A.  I  remember  seeing  it  lying  there  very  well,  but  I  cannot 
explain  exactly  how  it  looked. 

Q.  Do  you  not  recollect  that  I  called  your  attention  to  it  and  stated 
that  that  was  the  piece,  and  that  it  was  upset  down  on  the  ground? 
A.    Yes  ;  1  do  remember  that. 

Q.    And  that  it  ought  to  be  preserved?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  see  whether  there  should  be  any  marks  that  might  be  dis- 
covered on  the  top  side?     A.    Yes,  sir,  you  did. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Putnam.)     You  mean  the  upper  chord?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Putnam.  It  seems  to  me  we  saw  that.  Do  you  know  where 
it  is,  Mr.  Richards? 

Mr.  Richards.     Out  at  Roxbury. 

Mr.  Hewins.     The  piece  is  there  now. 

Mr.  Vose.     At  Roxbury. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hewins.)  Then  you  have  not  examined  that  since? 
A.    No. 

Mr.  Hewins.  It  occurred  to  me  that  that  was  one  of  the  most 
important  things,  —  as  to  whether  there  were  any  marks  on  the  top 
of  it. 

The  Chairman.     Have  you  seen  it  yourself? 

Mr.  Hewins.     Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.     Are  there  any  marks  there? 

Mr.  Hewins.     Yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  277 

Q.  Can  yon  tell  what  was  the  condition  of  the  floor  beam  as  it  lay 
on  the  ground?     A.    No,  I  cannot. 

Q.    Well,  about  thi9  inclined  end  post?     A.    What  about  it? 
Q.   Do  you  remember  of  seeing  it  on  the  ground?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    Or  what  its  condition  was?     A.    I  did  not  notice  its  condition 
particularly  ;   no,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  about  the  casting  resting  upon  the 
bottom,  at  its  foot,  on  a  steel  plate,  on  which  the  post  rests?  A. 
Mr.  Andrews  called  my  attention  to  something  in  regard  to  that  rest- 
ing on  the  bottom,  I  have  forgotten  what  it  was.  It  was  all  covered 
up  with  rubbish.  It  did  not  strike  me  as  of  any  importance  at  the 
time. 

Q.  Did  you  note  the  condition  of  the  floor  beam  at  all?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  That  was  whole?  A.  I  should  say  it  was  whole,  as  far  as  I 
can  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  condition  of  this  piece  which  was  directly 
under  it?     A.    No;   I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  Do  you  not  recollect  I  called  your  attention  to  a  piece  of  the 
track?     A.   Yes,  I  do. 

Q.  Saying  that  that  was  an  important  thing  to  remember?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  it  was  straight?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  of 
your  saying  it,  but  I  do  remember  of  your  calling  my  attention  to  it. 
Mr.  Hewins.  Now,  this  is  an  important  thing,  Mr.  Chairman. 
That  piece  at  that  time  was  straight ;  it  is  now  bent.  How  it  has 
become  bent  I  do  not  know,  but  Professor  Vose  remembers  that  I 
called  his  attention  to  the  beam  there,  which  was  that  beam,  and  it 
was  then  straight. 

Q.  Now,  if  these  hangers  had  broken,  what  must  have  happened 
to  that  post  while  the  truss  stood?  A.  Which  these  hangers  rest 
on? 

Q.  The  lower  chord.  A.  I  do  not  know,  I  am  sure. 
Q.  You  are  familiar  with  the  strains  of  trusses?  A.  If  that  post 
was  substantially  supported  at  the  time,  and  the  hangers  had  given 
way,  I  should  say  the  post  ought  to  be  bent.  You  might  go  back 
and  say  it  was  not  done,  therefore  it  was  not  substantially  supported 
at  the  bottom.     I  do  not  know  how  correct  that  might  be. 

Q.  You  saw  the  I  beam  of  the  bridge?  A.  I  saw  what  you 
showed  me. 

Q.  What  purported  to  be?  Well,  if  that  was  supported  there, 
that  must  be  crippled  if  these  hangers  were  firm?  A.  I  do  not  know, 
because  I  do  not  know  whether  the  counter-rod  had  hold  of  them  or 
not;  if  it  had,  they  would  be  out  of  the  way  pretty  quick. 


278  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Well,  either  that  post  or  this  counter-rod  must  have  gone?  A. 
Yes  ;  I  should  think  so. 

Q.  Must  it  not  be  so,  absolutely?  A.  I  cannot  tell  on  looking 
now,  on  this  tumbling  down,  what  might  happen. 

Q.    Assuming  that  the  truss  itself  was  intact?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  these  hangers  had  broken,  and  that  floor  beam  had 
brought  its  weight  entirely  upon  that  point?  A.  Yes.  You  think  it 
would  have  been  crippled? 

Q.    You  think  so,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Hewins.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
it  is  bent  now.  But  Professor  Vose  remembers  that  I  called  his 
attention  to  it  then. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Where  was  that?  A.  It  was  right  cl^se 
by  that  casting,  on  that  side  towards  the  main  line  of  the  Providence 
road. 

Q.    Which  way  was  it  lying?     A.    Near  the  floor  beam. 

Q.  An  I-beam?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  an  I  beam  ;  but 
Mr.  Hewins  did  call  my  attention  to  an  I  beam  which  ought  to 
have  been  bent,  but  was  not. 

Mr.  Hewins.     Perhaps  that  is  sufficient. 

The  Chairman.     It  is  certain  that  he  saw  it. 

Mr.  Putnam.     Yes  ;   one  Mr.  Hewins  pointed  out. 

The  Chairman.  Professor  Vose,  will  you  examine  that  contract, 
which  is  the  contract  for  this  bridge,  and  let  us  know  later  whether  you 
consider  it  in  proper  form  for  a  bridge  of  this  sort ;  if  the  specifications 
are  sufficiently  accurate? 

Mr.  Vose.    Do  you  want  it  right  off? 

The  Chairman.     No  ;  at  your  leisure. 

Henry  Manlev —  sicorn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  your  full  name?  A.  Henry 
Manley. 

Q.   Your  residence  ?     A.    West  Roxbury,  Mount  Vernon  Street. 

Q.    And  3-our  occupation  ?     A.    Civil  engineer. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  education  as  a  civil  engineer?  A.  I  have 
attended  the  Bridgewater  Academy  ;  graduated  from  the  Bridgewater 
State  Normal  School ;  served  in  the  army  ;  entered  the  office  of  G. 
Herbert  Shedd  as  a  student  in  1866,  paying  a  premium,  served  with 
him  three  years  as  a  student,  and  then  at  that  time  entered  the  office 
of  the  city  engineer,  as  assistant  engineer,  and  am  there  still.  I  have 
been  engaged  in  the  city's  employ  on  almost  all  kinds  of  engineering 
construction  ;  and  after  the  first  few  years  drifted  gradually  into  the 
work  of  building  and  caring  for  the  city's  bridges,  and  for  about  fif- 
teen years  have  made  the  inspection  of  the  iron  bridges  in  the  city  for 


APPENDIX.  279 

the  city  engineer  which  it  is  required  by  the  ordinances  he  shall 
make. 

Q.    What  is  3-our  position  now?     A.    Assistant  engineer. 

Q.    Of  the  city  of  Boston?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  examined  this  bridge  before  the  accident?  A. 
Ouly  in  the  most  casual  manner,  from  riding  underneath  it;  I  never 
got  out  of  the  carriage  to  look  at  it,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  What  examination  have  you  made  of  it  since,  and  what  has 
been  the  result  of  your  examination?  A.  I  arrived  there  on  the 
morning  of  the  accident  at  a  little  past  half-past  eight,  perhaps  twen- 
ty-five minutes  of  nine  ;  I  know  I  looked  at  my  watch  after  I  had 
been  there  a  little  while,  and  it  was  sixteen  minutes  of  nine.  I  came 
to  the  bidge  by  the  way  of  the  highway  from  Roslindale.  The  train 
was  filled  with  my  friends  and  neighbors,  and  my  first  inquiry  was  for 
their  condition.  The  injured  had  been  removed,  and  there  were  none. 
I  saw  no  injured  people  of  an}'  consequence,  except  as  were  able  to 
remain  on  the  premises,  though  I  met  a  large  number  in  coming  from 
my  house  to  the  bridge.  As  I  reached  the  bridge  by  the  highway,  I 
first  came  to  the  rear  end  of  the  train,  the  smoking  car.  Everything 
was  quiet  there,  and  I  made  my  way  to  the  other  end  of  the  train  by 
climbing  up  the  abutment  towards  Roslindale,  climbing  up  over  the 
fill.  When  I  reached  the  top  I  looked  for  marks  on  the  ties  for  the 
train  being  off  the  track,  that  being  the  accident  that  I  most  feared  in 
connection  with  the  bridge.  I  found  no  signs  of  any  train  having 
been  off  the  track.  I  made  my  way  then  to  the  forward  end  of  the 
train  on  the  highway  and  made  further  inquiries  as  to  people  on  board 
the  train  ;  and  after  I  had  learned  all  that  I  could  in  that  direction,  I 
set  myself  at  work  to  examine  the  wreck  and  find  what  caused  the 
bridge  to  tumble  down,  if  I  could.  I  perhaps,  first,  should  say  that 
I  had  forgotten  the  precise  construction  of  the  bridge,  and  it  took  me 
a  little  time,  in  the  confusion  and  in  the  state  of  mind  in  which  I  was, 
—  a  good  many  of  my  friends  and  acquaintances  being  injured,  —  to 
rebuild  the  bridge  in  my  mind,  if  I  may  express  it  in  that  way  ;  but 
I  gradually  did,  and  recollected  the  outlines  of  the  thing.  I  noticed 
on  the  Roslindale  end  of  the  wreck  that  the  track  was  substantially 
whole  and  inclined  against  the  abutment ;  a  good  many  of  the  sleep- 
ers—the ties  —  were  in  place;  and  for  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet,  at 
least,  from  the  Roslindale  abutment  there  were  no  marks  of  any  car 
being  off  the  track. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Will  you  state  that  again?  You  say 
there  were  no  marks  of  any  car  being  off  the  track  for  twenty-five  or 
thirty  feet  from  what?     A.    From  the  Roslindale  abutment. 

Q.    Going  towards  Roslindale?     A.    No  ;  going  towards  Boston. 

Q.    On  the  part  that  fell  down?     A.   On  the  part  that  fell  down. 


280  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  ties  were  in  their  places,  or  a  majority  of  them,  and  there  were 
no  marks  of  a  train  having  left  the  track.  I  made  my  way  forward 
ami  noticed  what  I  supposed  to  be  the  top  chord  lying  under  a  car, 
partly  crushed.  I  crossed  over  the  train  between  two  cars  and  came 
upon  the  cast-iron  joint  lock  that  has  been  spoken  of  so  frequently. 
That  was  lying  on  the  ground  clear  from  the  cars  a  few  feet,  and  sub- 
stantially in  the  upright  position  which  it  occupied  in  the  bridge, 
except  that  it  was  tipped  forward  towards  Boston,  and  somewhere 
near  in  the  position  it  must  have  occupied  in  the  bridge  originally. 
The  first  thing  I  noticed  about  that  was  the  fact  that  the  keeper  nut 
on  the  end  of  the  pin,  the  large  pin  running  through  it,  was  gone. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  nut  do  3-ou  speak  of?  A.  The 
large  pin  that  runs  through  it  has  a  nut  to  keep  it  in  position,  which 
is  known  as  the  keeper  nut,  and  that  was  gone  ;  and  that  the  diag- 
onal rod  which  takes  hold  of  that  pin  outside  of  the  cast-iron  joint 
lock  had  slipped  off  the  pin.  Well,  I  thought  that  perhaps  the  nut 
had  stripped  off  in  the  fall,  and  I  looked  at  the  pin  and  found  the 
threads  were  whole  ;  and  I  was  considering  what  bearing  that  had 
upon  the  accident,  and,  on  looking  around  I  found  the  nut  about  four 
feet  away  from  the  pin,  bedded  in  the  snow,  with  just  the  top  of  it  vis- 
ible. It  occurred  to  me  at  the  time,  —  I  was  looking  for  light,  —  and 
it  occurred  to  me  that  possibly  might  have  been  removed  by  a  mali- 
cious person  and  have  caused  the  accident ;  and  I  examined  the  snow 
around  it  to  ascertain  whether  snow  had  fallen  since  that  laid  there. 
I  concluded  that  it  had  been  put  in  there  very  recently.  I  felt  of  the 
threads  on  the  inside  of  it,  and  they  felt  rough.  It  is  a  cast-iron  nut. 
I  finally  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  had  been  stripped  off,  the 
threads  giving  way  on  the  nut,  and  it  had  no  bearing  on  the  accident. 
But  a  later  examination  showed  me  that  the  threads  were  .whole  on 
the  nut,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  satisfy  nryself  how  that  nut  came 
off  that  pin,  and  have  not  since  been  able  ;  it  is  an  unexplained  por- 
tion of  the  story  to  me,  still.  I  noticed  further  that  this  cast-iron 
lock  had  received  a  severe  blow. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Manley,  before  you  go  any  further  we  will 
have  that  screw  and  nut  explained  more  fully.  Mr.  Doane,  have  you 
any  drawings  which  will  show  that? 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  is  shown  in  the  photograph. 

(Witness  referred  to  the  photograph  and  pointed  out  the  location  of 
the  nut  and  pin  referred  to.) 

The  Witness.  The  further  one  had  slipped  off  of  the  pin  and  lay  on 
the  ground. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  The  inside  one?  A.  The  inside  one. 
The  pin  apparently  had  not  started  lengthwise  in  the  cast-iron  lock. 
The  nut  had  the  mark  of  a  severe  blow  upon  it.    I  have  thought  since  I 


APPENDIX.  281 

perhaps  should  have  looked  to  see  whether  it  was  a  right-handed 
thread;  if  it  had  been  a  right-handed  thread,  a  blow  in  the  direction 
in  which  the  train  was  moving  would  have  tended  to  screw  it  on  in- 
stead of  taking  it  off.  If  it  was  dragged  off  by  something  moving,  by 
a  moving  train,  it  must  have  been  taken  on  the  under  side  of  the  nut 
instead  of  the  upper  side  of  the  nut.  The  cast-iron  angle  block  has 
three  large  strengthening  ribs  on  the  top  that  are  possibly  an  inch  and 
a  half  in  diameter  ;  I  do  not  know  how  high,  a  couple  of  inches,  per- 
haps. The  corner  of  that  rib  nearest  Roslindale  and  next  the  track 
had  received  a  heavy  blow  that  had  scraped  off  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  metal,  perhaps  half  or  three-quarters  of  an  inch  in  depth  and 
three  inches  in  length,  more  or  less  ;  I  made  no  measurement ;  and  in 
the  construction  of  the  upper  truss  it  occurred  to  me  then  that  it  was 
possible  that  that  was  the  blow  that  threw  down  the  main  truss.  I 
saw  the  upper  end  of  the  hangers  that  have  been  mentioned,  but  I  did 
not,  at  that  first  examination,  see  the  broken  ends  of  the  hangers;  I 
did  not  see  the  parts  of  them  that  were  on  the  floor  beam,  I  did  not 
dentify  the  floor  beam,  I  did  not  know  which  floor  beams  ran  cross- 
wise and  which  lengthwise  ;  I  knew  there  must  be  one  which  ran  each 
way  from  near  this  point.  Something  called  my  attention  away  from 
this  point  at  that  time,  and  I  made  my  way  up  on  the  bank  nearest 
the  Boston  end,  which  I  had  not  seen  at  that  time,  and  saw  the  con- 
dition of  the  cars  at  that  point  in  a  general  waj-.  I  made  no  careful 
memoranda  of  the  facts.  I  observed  the  fact  that  the  engine  had  ap- 
parently, from  having  gone  on,  got  over  clear, — I  was  told  so,  — 
went  over  without  serious  damage ;  that  the  front  trucks  were 
under  the  first  car,  the  rear  trucks  were  gone  ;  the  next  car  had  lost 
all  its  trucks,  and  at  the  rear  end  was  badly  broken,  and  particularby 
broken  near  the  top ;  the  third  car,  the  trucks  were  gone,  and  the 
bottom  badly  broken ;  and  also  that  the  roof  of  the  fourth  car 
had  landed,  apparently,  upon  the  bottom.  That  gave  me  the 
impression  that  the  train  was  running  at  a  very  considerable 
speed.  I  accidentally  learned  at  that  stage  that  a  train  was  com- 
ing into  Boston,  and.  as  I  had' engagements,  I  got  aboard 
the  train  at  eleven  o'clock  and  came  in.  I  may  say  that  I  came 
into  town  under  an .  impression,  strongly,  that  something  must  have 
given  way  on  the  train  and  some  portion  of  the  train  struck  this  angle 
block  ;  some  portion  besides  the  engine,  from  the  fact  that  the  engine 
was  in  good  condition.  I  mentioned  this  fact  to  Mr.  Cheney,  an 
assistant  in  the  office,  principal  assistant  in  the  city  engineer's  office, 
and  arranged  with  him  and  with  Mr.  Tinkham,  the  chief  of  the 
draughting  department,  the  principal  draughtsman,  and  with  my 
assistant  and  another  assistant  engineer,  assistant  city  engineer,  Mr. 
Howe,  to  go  out  in  the  afternoon  ;  got  a  pass  from  the  Superintendent 


282  USSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

of  Police  to  go  inside  the  police  lines,  and  we  went  out  on  the  2.40  train. 
On  the  way  we  were  joined  by  three  or  four  other  engineers,  and  passed 
inside  the  lines,  first  taking  a  view  at  the  top  of  the  abutment.  And  as 
we  reached  the  foot  of  the  fill  in  the  highway  I  met  Professor  Vose,  who 
immediately  called  our  attention  to  the  broken  ends  of  the  hangers  that 
we  visited.  The  fact  that  the  hangers  had  old  breaks  in  them  seemed 
to  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  accident,  to  my  mind,  and  sufficiently 
accounted  for  what  followed.  I  looked  at  them,  and  stayed  on  the 
premises  a  couple  of  hours,  and  so  far  as  I  talked  with  the  people 
present  who  were  of  the  party,  and  with  other  engineers  I  saw  there, 
there  seemed  to  be  no  material  disagreement  amongst  us  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  accideut ;  and  from  what  I  have  learned  since  and  from 
the  testimony,  I  have  not  seen  any  special  cause  to  change  my  opin- 
ion,—  that  is,  that  the  hangers  are  the  most  suspicious  part  of  the 
whole  structure,  the  part  which  would  be  expected  naturally  to  give 
way  first,  and  that  the}'  gave  way  under  the  engine.  It  seems  to  me 
that,  without  doing  any  very  great  violence  to  probabilities,  it  would 
naturally  follow  from  that  fact. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  think  those  three  cars  could  have 
got  over,  if  that  was  the  case?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  know  that  they  did 
get  over.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  weight  of  the  engine  had  snapped 
the  hanger,  that  there  is,  or  is  shown  by  the  plans  to  be,  a  post  under- 
neath it,  which  I  take  to  have  been  placed  there  to  take  the  upward 
thrust  of  the  counter  brace  which  leads  down  to  it.  While  I  am  not 
very  familiar  with  the  structure  as  a  whole,  yet  it  seems  to  me  that 
with  the  aid  of  that  post,  which  is  directly  under  the  cross  stringer, 
the  fall  of  the  floor  system  may  have  been  delayed  long  enough 
for  the  train  to  get  over  it.  The  testimony  of  the  fireman,  which  I 
happened  to  hear,  seemed  to  strongly  confirm  that  idea,  he  having 
first  heard  a  snap,  and  looking  back  saw  a  car  —  which  car  he  could 
not  say  —  shoot  out  to  the  left.  If  the  hanger  gave  wajr,  that  end  of 
the  floor  beam  would  naturally  drop,  to  a  certain  extent,  immediately, 
and  might  be  caught  by  this  diagonal  rod  and  the  post,  first  bjr  the 
post  and  then  by  the  diagonal  rod,  and  probably  by  other  connections, 
whether  they  would  be  of  any  use.  That  would  incline  the  train  to 
the  left,  and  perhaps  throw  it  off  the  track.  The  main  truss  being  to 
the  left,  some  part  of  the  following  train  might  strike  the  angle  block 
or  the  joint  lock,  as  was  seen  at  that  time,  and  probably  the  strong- 
est connection  crosswise  of  the  bridge  having  gone,  that  would  become 
a  very  weak  point  in  the  truss,  and  a  sidewise  blow  there  would  be 
less  likely  to  throw  it  down.  The  telescoping  of  the  car  I  could  not 
attempt  to  account  for  with  any  minuteness.  It  was  apparent  they 
were  going  up  hill  and  were  off  the  track  at  that  point,  as  I  could  see 


APPENDIX.  283 

that  the  stringers  near  the  Boston  end  of  the  bridge  were  torn  to 
pieces  badly  ;  they  were  evidently  off  the  track. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  mean  the  sleepers?  A.  I  mean  the 
sleepers.  Of  course,  they  must  at  some  time  have  brought  up  yery 
solidly  against  the  floor  of  the  bridge  or  the  abutment,  and  the  momen- 
tum of  the  cars  from  the  rear  would  strike  an  extremely  severe  blow. 
I  do  not  know  precisely  how  long  the  11  >or  beam,  supported  by  the 
broken  hangers  and  with  the  supports  below  it,  would  stay  ;  but  if  it 
held  on  for  even  a  few  seconds,  the  momentum  of  the  train  and  the 
pull  of  the  engine  upon  it  would  perhaps  account  for  getting  the  cars 
across.  It  seems  to  me  that  any  theory  which  requires  that  a  derail- 
ment should  take  place  at  that  exact  spot  where  such  a  suspicious 
feature  of  the  bridge  existed  as  the  broken  hangers  must  have 
extremely  positive  evidence,  corroboratory  evidence,  to  make  it  tena- 
ble. The  broken  hanger  is  a  stubborn  fact  which  I  find  it  very  diffi- 
cult to  get  over,  and  I  am  inclined  to  favor  any  theory  of  the  downfall 
of  the  bridge  which  starts  with  it  as  its  starting-point ;  I  think  any 
theory  must  start  with  that. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  examined  these  hangers?  A. 
I  have,  to  a  certain  extent. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  breaks, 
whether  the}'  are  new  or  old?  A.  There  is  no  doubt  in  rny  mind  at 
all,  sir.  that  the  breaks  are  old,  to  a  considerable  extent. 

Q.  Will  you  specify  to  what  extent  the}-  are  old  and  to  what  extent 
1hey  are  new?  A.  In  Exhibit  XX,  on  one  side  there  is  a  crack, 
perhaps  a  fifth  or  a  sixth  part  of  the  area. 

Q.  That  is  on  the  bar?  A.  On  the  bar.  On  the  other  side  of  the 
same  hanger  there  is  a  crack  that  covers  perhaps  a  third  part  of  the 
area.  It  has  some  bright  points  now,  but  I  do  not  remember  whether 
those  existed  or  not.  I  do  not  think  that  part  of  the  crack  had  any 
part  or  was  doing  any  duty  at  the  time. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  saw  these  before  they  were  stolen? 
A.    I  saw  them  at  the  place  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  the  proportion  of  those  new 
breaks?  A.  The  new  breaks  are  perhaps  five-sixths;  the  old 
breaks  larger ;  in  the  other  one  the  old  break  is  perhaps  a  third  part 
of  the  area. 

Mr.  Kinslky.     This  (Exhibit)  is  the  mate  to  it;  this  is  X. 

Q.  So  it  is  the  same  story  with  regard  to  that.  How  about  the 
weld?  A.  On  this  side  the  weld  evidently  did  not  hold,  and  has  not 
been  doing  any  good  for  an  indefinitely  long  time.  There  is  nothing 
there  that  shows  that  it  would  ever  hold  ;  whether  it  would  amount  to 
anything,  I  could  not  say.  It  has  not  been  of  any  account  for  a  long 
time  past. 


284  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Then,  in  the  piece  marked  "X."  does  that  correspond?  Do 
you  make  the  same  observation?     A.    This  is  "X." 

Q.  Does  that  correspond  with  the  fractures  in  the  other  part?  A. 
There  is  more  rust  here,  and  that  that  I  call  the  old  break  there  does 
not  look  so  plain  as  this,  if  this  part  belongs  there,  as  I  presume  it 
does.     That  may  be  a  new  break. 

Q.  Describe  it  so  that  the  reporter  can  take  it  down.  A.  The 
break  that  I  call  one-third,  on  this  side,  in  "X,"  looks  like  a  new 
fracture  ;  the  other  part  of  the  break  in  "  X"  corresponds  to  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  break  in  "XX." 

Q.  Now  take  "Y";  that  is  "YY,"  is  it  not?  A.  "Y"  and 
"  YY."  I  saw  both  on  the  ground,  and  the  hanger  was  substantially 
broken  in  two.  There  is,  or  was  at  that  time,  —  it  is  not  so  apparent 
now,  —  a  strip  of  metal  on  one  side,  perhaps  one-eighth  of  an  inch  in 
depth  in  "  YY  "  and  "  Y,"  that  was  apparently  a  new  fracture. 

Q.    And  the  rest  was  what?     A.   The  rest  is  old  fracture. 

Q.  How  about  the  weld?  A.  The  weld  is  not  united,  it  is  torn 
apart;  whether  it  was  ever  united  or  not,  I  do  not  know,  but  prob- 
ably not ;  I  should  say  not.  I  should  say  it  never  had  united  there 
properly. 

Q.  Now,  how  about  these  irons,  these  hangers,  whether  they  were 
well  made  originally?  A.  I  should  say  it  was  a  very  poor  job  of 
blacksmithing,  and  the  design  I  do  not  understand. 

Q.  Before  you  leave  the  blacksmithing,  were  the  faults  in  those 
hangers,  which  you  see  now,  of  such  a  nature  that  they  could  have 
been  detected  when  they  were  originall}*  put  up  ;  that  is,  as  far  as  the 
iron  and  the  blacksmithing  are  concerned?  A.  The  appearance  of  the 
welds  and  of  the  joints  above  the  welds  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  cast 
suspicion  upon  the  goodness  of  the  welds  throughout.  I  should  reject 
them,  without  an}*  hesitation. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  those  imperfect  welds  showed  when  they  were 
put  up  originally?  A.  That  is  a  little  uncertain.  The  appearance 
of  the  welding  at  the  point  of  the  V  in  "  YY  "  here  looks  like  a  bad 
job.  It  would  lead  me  to  suspicion.  It  is  not  a  good  job,  —  it  is  not 
a  good  job  of  blacksmithing. 

Q.  Would  that  have  shown  when  it  was  first  made?  A.  That 
would  have  shown  ;  yes,  sir ;  there  is  nothing  to  change  it. 

Q.  Now,  go  on  with  the  forms?  A.  I  do  not  understand  why 
the}*  were  built  or  designed  in  the  shape  the}*  are.  If  they  had 
enclosed  something,  —  I  understand  there  was  nothing  between  them 
to  keep  them  apart,  —  if  there  had  been  something  between  them  to 
keep  them  apart,  it  would  have  increased  their  strength  to  a  certain 
extent.  But  in  the  way  in  which  they  are  made  now  they  are  but  one 
degree  better  than  open  hooks  at  the  bottom. 


APPENDIX.  285 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying,  if  they  were  made  with  some- 
thing between  them  to  keep  them  apart?  A.  The  lower  part  of  the 
hanger  is  inclined  to  one  side.  They  were  put  in  around  the  lower 
pin,  rights  and  lefts,  as  yon  see.  If  there  had  been  any  portion  of 
the  floor  beam  which  passed  between  the  two  hangers  to  hold  them 
rigidly  in  their  separated  position  near  the  beam,  it  would  have  added 
to  their  strength  somewhat ;  but  as  it  stands  — 

Q.  What  was  the  construct  ion?  Did  the  floor  beam  consi-t  of  two 
I  beams  with  a  bolt  through  them?     A.    I  think  it  did. 

Q.  Where  were  those  hangers,  —  on  the  outside  of  the  two  I 
beams,  or  between  them?  A.  I  understand  they  were  between  them. 
They  were  between  them.  They  were  out  of  sight,  to  a  great  extent. 
Perhaps  the  outer  side  could  be  seen,  but  most  of  them  could  not  be 
seen.  There  is  the  same  bending  action  upon  the  lower  part  of  the 
hanger  that  there  would  be  upon  a  hook  ;  the  welding  at  the  top  does 
some  good,  but  adds  an  uncertain  amount  of  additional  strength.  If 
there  had  been  a  spreader  in  there  it  would  have  increased  it,  but  I 
saw  nothing  in  the  floor  beam,  though  I  did  not  examine  it  with  that 
idea  in  m}*  mind  at  the  time,  to  know  whether  there  was  anything  or 
not.  I  have  since  been  informed  that  there  was  not ;  nothing  in- 
tended to  be  there. 

Q.  I  did  not  understand  where  that  spreader  would  have  come  in. 
Will  you  please  state  that  more  fully?  A.  (Referring  to  a  drawing.) 
That  would  spread  out  right  here,  so  that  the  weight  on  this  point 
would  have  been  in  this  direction  ;  there  would  be  something  there  to 
resist  it  and  it  would  tend  to  give  a  squarer  pull. 

Q.  (Showing  a  drawing  to  witness.)  There  is  a  drawing;  is  that 
the  way  they  were  construct' d?  A.  Yes,  sir.  (Referring  to  one  of 
the  hangers.)  Now,  if  there  had  been  a  long  bar  between  there  to 
hold  them  apart,  it  would  have  helped  them  some ;  and  it  not  being 
there,  I  do  not  understand  why  they  were  made  in  that  shape.  They 
were  separated  at  the  top,  it  is  true.  Perhaps  a  man  might  draw  them 
that  way,  but  a  man  would  not  build  them  that  way.  If  there  had 
been  a  flat  piece  between  the  two,  if  there  had  been  a  long  bar  be- 
tween them,  it  would  not  give  any  more  twist,  it  would  shove  tight  in 
between  them,  it  would  give  a  broader  support.  There  is  a  tendency 
to  pull  these  two  parts  together.  If  there  had  been  something  in 
there  —  but,  however,  that  would  not  have  been  a  very  serious  matter. 
The  breaks  in  the  hangers  are  very  probably,  apparently,  near  the 
place  where  I  should  expect  them  to  come  from  the  weight  applied  to 
the  bottom  of  an  open  hook  in  that  place. 

(,>.  Now,  about  the  building  of  a  bridge  with  hangers,  were  those 
hangers  covered  up  in  the  block?  A.  They  were  inside  of  the  cast- 
iron  block,  the  whole  upper  extremity,  and  the  lower  extremity  be- 


286  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

tween  those  two  I  beams  that  met  the  cross  beam,  so  that  it  would 
have  been  difficult  to  make  any  satisfactory  examination  of  their  con- 
dition. 

Q.  Was  it  possible  to  make  any  examination  of  their  condition? 
A.  I  do  not  think  it  was.  It  was  not  possible.  I  looked  at  the  cor- 
responding part  of  the  truss,  which  was  still  whole  that  same  after- 
noon, and  I  could  not  get  at  it.  I  could  see  a  little  piece  of  the 
hanger  in  two  or  three  places,  but  not  enough  to  make  any  proper 
examination. 

Q.  Was  it  possible  to  see  any  portion  of  these  hangers  where  they 
are  broken?  A.  I  could  not  say  with  absolute  certainty  about  that, 
but  I  think  not. 

Q.  In  your  opinion  as  an  expert,  is  it  a  proper  way  to  construct  a 
bridge,  with  hangers  covered  up  in  this  way?  A.  It  is  not,  because 
there  is  no  need  of  it.  There  are  essential  parts  of  a  bridge,  for 
instance,  the  foundations,  that  are  necessarily  covei*ed  ;  but  in  the 
case  of  the  hangers,  it  is  entirely  practicable  to  put  them  where  they 
can  be  seen. 

Q.  Is  this  method  of  construction,  this  truss  with  the  hangers, 
considered  a  proper  method  of  construction,  nowadays?  A.  With 
concealed  hangers? 

Q.  No  ;  with  any  hangers?  A.  It  is  often  necessaryto  use  hang- 
ers in  certain  cases.  Of  course,  common  sense  teaches  any  one  that 
it  is  better  to  put  the  beam  on  the  top  than  to  hang  it  on  the  under 
side,  where  it  is  practicable  to  do  so. 

Q.  In  building  this  bridge,  in  your  opinion,  was  there  any  necessity 
of  hanging  the  floor  beam,  or  could  it  have  been  built  with  the  floor 
beam  resting  on  the  top  of  the  truss?  A.  That  question  answers 
itself  from  the  fact  that  the  other  end  of  the  same  floor  beam  is  on 
top  of  the  truss.  It  would  have  been  entirely  practicable.  It  would 
have  required  a  truss  of  a  little  less  depth,  but  it  would  not  have 
made  the  proportion  of  the  truss  bad.  A  truss  should  have  a  certain 
ratio  between  its  length  and  its  depth.  If  the  truss  had  been  made 
shallower  it  would  have  been  a  little  heavier,  and  the  floor  beams 
would  have  been  on  top.  But  the  diminution  in  depth  would  not 
have  been  sufficient  to  make  a  badly  proportioned  truss. 

Q.  Are  there  any  bridges  in  Boston  built  on  the  principle  of  that 
truss?  A.  None  in  the  control  of  the  city,  and  I  do  not  know  of  any 
on  the  railroads. 

Q.  Are  there  any  bridges  in  the  control  of  the  city  that  are  built 
with  hangers?  A.  Yes,  sir;  lots  of  them.  We  have  so  little  head- 
room, it  is  often  necessary  to  use  them. 

Q.  And  in  those  cases  are  the  hangers  concealed  from  view?  A. 
No,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  287 

Q.  In  any  case?  A.  Not  to  my  recollection,  and  I  think  not  in 
an}-  case.  I  am  very  sure  they  are  not.  There  is  no  chance  for  con- 
cealment. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  this  sketch  of  the  rails,  and  does  it  throw 
any  light,  to  your  mind,  upon  the  nature  of  the  accident,  how  it  origi- 
nated? A.  I  have  just  caught  a  glimpse  of  it  before.  It  simply 
shows  that  as  those  joints  must  have  been  somewhere  near  the  posi- 
tion of  the  hangers  — 

Q.  About  five  or  six  feet  on  the  Roslindale  side  of  the  photograph? 
A.  It  looks  probable,  as  that  portion  of  the  roadway  went  down,  that. 
the  rails  remained  under  it  somewhere  near  their  original  position, 
and  they  caught  in  some  part  of  the  train  and  were  doubled  up  by  the 
forward  motion.  That  is  all  that  occurs  to  me.  Some  of  the  other 
evidence  may  show  that  one  of  them  struck  the  tracks,  or  something 
of  that  kind,  but  in  a  general  way  that  is  all  I  can  say  about  it.  It 
looks  as  though  they  were  caught  in  some  part  of  the  moving  train, 
and  these  conditions  might  well  follow.  And  this  part  being  down, 
it  may  have  drawn  the  spikes  along  here,  so  that  the  sleepers  would 
have  been  scraped  out,  torn  out  from  under  the  rails,  before  the  ends 
caught  in  the  moving  train. 

Q.  There  seems  to  be  a  decided  bend  over  the  abutment  on  each 
side.  "Would  you  have  expected  those  to  bend  in  opposite  directions? 
A.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  good  reason  why  they  might  not. 
It  is  extremely  uncertain  which  way  they  would  take.  The  train  evi- 
dently  had  a  movement  in  this  direction  from  the  position  in  which  it 
was  found.  You  might  expect  that  the  nearest  end  of  the  rail  would 
be  carried  in  thai  direction.  They  evidently  went  in  opposite  direc- 
tions ;  I  do  not  know  why. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  the  position  of  the  cars  on  the  ■abutment 
and  their  condition  is  consistent  with  the  theory  that  the  breaking  of 
the  hangers  was  the  original  cause  of  the  disaster?  A.  Well,  sir, 
there  is  this  difficulty  in  the  way  :  if  you  grant  that  when  the  hanger 
gave  way  the  floor  beam  fell  into  the  street,  then  it  is  hardly  consis- 
tent; but  if  the  additional  props  which  were  below  had  helped  to  hold 
it  for  a  very  few  seconds,  it  is  consistent. 

Q.  What  were  those  additional  props?  A.  I  do  not  know  abso- 
lutely except  from  the  hangers  — 

Q.  And  the  I  beam?  A.  And  the  I  beam  supported  at  the 
bottom  in  one  direction  by  a  round  brace  with  a  counter  brace  to  the 
main  truss  ;  the  other  way  I  cannot  make  out  what  docs  hold  it. 

Q.  Is  there  not  another  post  coming  from  the  lower  end  of  the 
abutment?  A.  There  is  a  post  where  these  hangers  were,  —  on  the 
abutment,  —  resting  on  the  shore  at  the  foot  of  the  truss,  at  the  foot 
of  the  inclined  post. 


288  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

The  Chairman.  Somebody  said  that  a  stringer  ran  from  the  abut- 
ment over  there. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  dare  say  I  may  have  spoken  of  a  stringer  running 
from  the  abutment  to  the  post. 

The  Witness.  There  is  a  wooden  stringer  that  comes  in  there  for 
what  it  is  worth. 

Q.  What  is  the  distance  from  that  post  to  the  abutment.  A.  I  do 
not  know.  (Reference  had  to  plans.)  It  is  evidently  twenty-six  feet 
from  there  to  there  if  the  truss  is  symmetrical.  The  balance  would 
be  the  difference  ;  it  would  differ  with  each  rail,  decidedly. 

Q.  Now,  what  is  the  distance  on  each  rail  from  that  end  post  there 
to  the  centre  of  the  bridge?     A.    Half  of  the  whole  span. 

Q.  Fifty-two  feet  on  the  long  rail,  and  on  the  short  rail  how  much? 
A.    Just  the  same. 

Q.  There  is  where  one  rail  strikes  the  abutment,  and  here  is  the 
other ;  now,  it  is  the  difference  between  that  point  and  the  other,  is  it 
not? 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  is  about  thirteen  or  fourteen  feet. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  about  only  four  feet ;  fifty-two  feet  on 
one  rail  and  forty-eight  on  the  other.  The  part  of  the  bridge  that 
dropped  when  the  hanger  gave  way  is  fifty-two  feet  on  one  rail  and 
forty-eight  feet  on  the  other,  is  it  not?  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  what 
proportion  of  the  pull  was  dependent  upon  that  hanger.  There  were 
fifty-two  feet  on  the  north  rail  and  forty-eight  on  the  other,  is  that  it, 
Mr.  Doane?  I  understand  that  from  this  point  here  to  that  point 
there  is  fifty-two  feet,  and  that  the  south  rail  struck  the  abutment  four 
feet  this  side  of  that. 

Mr.  Doane.  I  think  the  distances  are  fifty-two  and  thirty-seven 
feet. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  this  rail  struck  the  abutment  there,  and  you 
have  got  to  measure  out  to  there,  also. 

The  Witness.  It  does  not  show  on  this  plan,  but  one  rail  reaches 
the  abutment  fifteen  feet  before  the  other  one.  A  person  riding  over 
it  who  tells  about  reaching  the  abutment,  on  looking  out  of  the  win- 
dow, it  would  make  fifteen  feet  difference  from  which  side  of  the  car 
he  looked  out.  It  seems  to  me  perfectly  impracticable  for  them  to 
tell  how  far  they  were  from  it  within  a  very  short  distance. 

Q.  Now,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  passing  over,  if  the  giving 
way  of  the  hanger  was  the  first  cause  of  the  accident,  and  they  began 
to  give  way  under  the  engine  or  the  first  car,  is  it  consistent,  —  can  you 
explain  the  cars  getting  on  to  the  abutment?  A.  It  seems  to  me,  sir, 
the  most  probable  theory  of  any  that  the  engine,  being  the  heaviest 
portion  of  the  train,  broke  the  hangers  ;  that  the  floor  beam,  held  up 
by  the  hangers,  was  delayed  rn  its  fall  a  certain  short  period,  longer 


APPENDIX.  289 

or  shorter,  by  the  post  underneath  it,  before  it  fell ;  and  that  time, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  speed  of  the  train,  —  it  seems  to  me  must 
have  been  fully  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  and  I  think  it  must  have  been 
greater,  —  would,  or  might,  without  any  straining  of  the  imagination, 
furnish  sufficient  material  to  carry  three  cars  over  under  the  existing 
conditions.  It  accounts,  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty,  to  my 
mind,  for  the  fact ;  and  is  more  probable,  seems  more  probable  to  my 
mind,  than  that  a  certain  unforeseen,  or  any  unforeseen,  accident 
should  take  place  directly  over  the  point  where  such  bad  hangers  as 
these  existed.  That  seems  suspicious.  It  casts  suspicion  upon  the 
theory  that  any  derailment  took  place.  It  is  extremely  improbable 
that  the  two  things  should  come  together,  as  it  is  necessary  to  sup- 
pose they  did  in  order  to  account  for  any  derailment  at  that  point. 
The  other  seems  much  more  probable. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinslev.)  Mr.  Manley,  had  you  any  experience  in 
the  building  of  iron  bridges  ten  years  ago?  A.  I  had  had  charge  of 
their  erection  ;  I  had  never  designed  one. 

Q.  In  the  light  of  ten  years  ago  would  you  have  considered  then 
these  hangers  objectionable,  do  you  think?  A.  I  should  have  con- 
sidered them  objectionable,  and  have  always  considered  them  objec- 
tionable ever  since  I  knew  anything  about  it.  But  they  were  perhaps 
considered  by  engineers  in  general  not  so  objectionable  at  that  time 
as  they  have  since  been  considered  to  be.  The  tendency  is  towards 
simplicity. 

Q.  I  understand;  and  then  it  was  towards  complication?  A. 
Well,  sir,  the  whole  matter  of  the  erection  of  iron  bridges  is  a  modern 
institution,  and  it  has  not  reached,  perhaps,  its  full  development.  Its 
progress  has  been  rapid.  Any  railroad  bridge  that  is  ten  years  old 
is  very  likely  to  be  behind  the  times,  unless  it  was  ahead  of  the  times 
when  it  was  erected. 

Q.  It  is  not  very  likely  to  be?  A.  No,  sir,  of  course.  At  about 
this  time,  —  perhaps  I  am  not  talking  now  wholly  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge, but  I  have  talked  with  other  engineers  and  I  know  that  at  some 
time  there  was  a  very  considerable  discussion  in  the  engineering 
papers  of  the  methods  of  making  bridge  trusses.  And  my  impression 
is  that  the  former  had  begun  to  get  at  the  head  at  that  time,  and  has 
gained  it  rapidly  since. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Has  there  ever  been  a  time,  Mr.  Man- 
ley,  when  you  have  regarded  these  particular  hangers  as  properly 
constructed?  A.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  these  until  since 
the  accident. 

Q.  I  mean  to  say  hangers  constructed  in  that  way.  Has  there 
been  a  time  when  you  would  have  regarded  hangers  so  constructed  as 


290  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

proper  to  put  into  an  iron  bridge?  A.  The  hangers  at  the  centre, 
you  mean  ? 

Q.  Yes;  constructed  as  these  are.  A.  I  should  not  have  consid- 
ered these  proper  at  any  time. 

Q.  Has  there  ever  been  a  time  when  it  has  been  regarded  as 
proper  and  good  engineering  to  conceal  important  parts  of  a  bridge 
structure  from  inspection?  A.  Well,  sir,  there  had  not  been  so 
many  accidents  ten  years  ago  as  since,  and  this  point  had  not  come 
into  so  much  prominence  as  it  has  since.  Engineers  who,  perhaps, 
at  that  time  would  do  that  without  any  fear,  would  hesitate  to  do  it 
now.  In  fact,  the  vital  portions  of  bridges  are  often  concealed  now ; 
it  must  be  so  from  the  necessities  of  the  case.  For  instance,  the 
anchors  of  a  suspension  bridge  are  sometimes  buried  where  they  can- 
not be  seen  ;  it  is  not  good  practice,  but  it  is  sometimes  almost  next 
to  impossible  to  avoid  it. 

Q.   You  avoid  it  where  it  is  possible  ?     A.    Always. 

Q.  You  ride  over  that  road  yourself,  Mr.  Manley,  —  that  branch? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  }Tou  ever  noticed  the  effect  of  that  curve  on  the  Roslin- 
dale  side  of  the  bridge?  A.  About  ten  da}'S,  or  such  a  matter, 
before  the  accident,  I  was  riding  over  the  bridge,  and  a  gentleman 
sitting  in  the  seat  with  me  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  per- 
ceptible motion  of  the  car  at  that  point.  He  was  one  of  those  people 
who  were  afraid  of  the  bridge.  Said  he:  '•  There!  Did  you  feel 
that?"  And  by  recollecting  I  did  remember  that  I  felt  an  undulating 
motion.  Usually  I  am  reading  the  paper,  and  as  long  as  the  train 
keeps  on  the  rails  I  do  not  mind  anything  of  that  kind  ;  I  am  not  very 
apt  to  observe  them. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  the  safet}'  of  this  bridge  discussed  by  peo- 
ple on  the  train?     A.    Very  often,  sir. 

Q.  For  how  long?  A.  Oh,  for  several  years  ;  perhaps  for  as  long 
as  I  have  lived  in  West  Roxbury,  which  is  eleven  years.  I  have 
not  heard  the  bridge  discussed  by  people  who  knew  what  bridges 
were,  and  I  have  never  heard  any  person  who  questioned  its 
strength  and  gave  any  intelligent  reason  for  the  faith  that  was  in 
him  ;  but  it  is  an  undoubted  fact  that  the  population  there  have  had 
a  very  great  distrust  of  this  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  From  its  looks?  A.  From  its  looks.  I 
attribute  it  to  that.  It  was  an  ungainly  thing  to  ride  over,  enough  to 
frighten  anybody  ;  but  if  he  looked  at  it  he  would  see  more  in  it  than 
appeared  at  first  sight. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Have  jTou  seen  enough  of  the  bridge  or 
its  drawings  to  know  how  the  floor  beams  were  placed  upon  the  truss? 
A.    Only  in  a  general  way,  that  they  rested  upon  the  top  of  it. 


APPENDIX.  291 

Q.  But  how  they  bit  the  system  of  the  old  truss?  A.  Well,  from 
some  source,  I  have  forgotten  where  now,  whether  from  looking  at  it 
I  cannot  say,  I  had  the  idea  it  was  applied  to  four  points  instead  of 
sixteen,  at  which  it  might  have  properly  been  applied.  At  the  same 
time,  that  might  be  a  small  part  of  any  passing  train. 

■Q.    How  many  panels  had  that  truss?     A.    I  think  sixteen. 

Q.  Is  it  contemplated  that  there  should  be  a  floor  beam  over  each 
point  of  the  truss?  A.  That  is  the  usual  and  proper  form  ;  yes,  sir. 
The  weight  it  is  intended  to  carry  should  be  divided  among  those  sev- 
eral points. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  as  a  passenger  on  the  trains  over  that  road 
whether  there  are  any  other  elements  of  danger  in  the  travel  over  that 
road  which  you  have  thought  of?  A.  Well,  sir,  there  are  always 
people  who  are  timid  on  railroad  trains,  and  they  examine  the  condi- 
tion of  things  pretty  thoroughly;  and,  as  it  was  known  that  I  was  an 
engineer,  I  perhaps  heard  more  of  them  than  some  other  people.  I 
often  heard  different  points  discussed.  Of  course,  this  embankment 
and  the  curve  the  people  took  notice  of;  then,  an  extremely  sharp 
grade  leading  down  to  Forest  Hills  and  connecting  there  with  the 
main  road  of  three  tracks.  I  have  often  heard  timid  people  say  it 
would  be  a  frightful  thing  if  they  should  lose  control  of  a  train  ami  it 
should  roll  down  that  grade  and  strike  an  express  train  on  the  main 
road.  Things  of  that  kind  have  been  before  their  minds.  Then  we 
have  been,  perhaps,  more  annoyed  than  in  danger  from  the  fact  that 
between  Fovcst  Hills  and  Dedhara  there  is  but  a  single  track  and  no 
turnout.  There  is  no  place  where  two  trains  can  pass  each  other 
between  the  two  points  except,  perhaps,  they  may  be  side-tracked 
upon  the  branch  that  leads  down  to  the  gravel  pits  ;  but  for  the  con- 
venient passing  of  two  trains  there  is  no  opportunity ;  and  in 
case  anything  breaks  down,  which  may  happen  on  any  road,  we  are 
put  to  very  great  inconvenience  on  that  score. 

Q.  Is  there  any  telegraphic  communication  there?  A.  There  is 
not,  of  any  kind. 

Q.  From  Roslindale?  A.  There  is  none.  I  am  not  certain 
whether  there  is  a  telegraph  station  at  Roslindale  or  not ;  I  think  not. 
There  is  no  telegraphic  communication  between  the  stations  of  the 
railroad  over  the  branch. 

Q.    The  whole  branch?     A.    The  whole  branch. 

Q.  From  Dedham  to  Forest  Hills ?  A.  From  Dedham  to  Forest 
Hills.  I  presume  there  is  at  Dedham,  but  I  do  not  know.  Then 
may  be  one  at  Dedham.  and  probably  one  at  Forest  Hills  ;  but  at  the 
stations  between,  on  the  branch,  there  is  no  telegraphic  ommunica- 
tion. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Aoiionx.)     I  would  like  to  inquire  whether  you  would 


292  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

say  it  was  possible  to  estimate  the  amount  of  strain  these  hangers 
would  sustain  in  the  shape  they  were  in?  A.  The  shape  those  hang- 
ers were  in,  I  would  not  estimate  it  was  safe  to  put  any  load  on 
them  at  all. 

Q.  That  is,  in  the  condition  they  were  in.  Now,  suppose  they 
were  in  a  perfect  condition,  could  you  estimate  the  amount  of  strain 
that  would  come  upon  the  hanger  from  its  position?  A.  The  strain 
that  would  come  upon  them? 

Q.  The  strain  they  would  sustain,  that  is,  in  the  shape  they  were 
in?     A.    That  they  are  capable  of  sustaining? 

Q.    Yes.     A.    Well,  in  a  somewhat  indifferent  way. 

Q.  Could  you  come  as  near  to  it  as  you  could  if  they  were  straight 
and  the  eyes  directly  above  one  another?     A.    Oh,  no,  nothing  like  it. 

Q.   Nothing  like  it?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  You  could  not  estimate?  A.  No,  sir.  You  could  make  an 
estimate  that  would  be  worth  something  probably,  but  you  could  not 
put  serious  confidence  in  it. 

Q.  You  said  that  there  were  other  engineers  with  you  when  you 
made  this  examination.  Were  there  several  engineers?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  they  all  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  you  did,  that  the 
hangers  gave  way  and  let  the  bridge  down?  A.  There  was  not  a 
dissenting  voice  that  I  heard  amongst  them,  and  have  not  since. 

Q.  Can  you  state  who  those  engineers  were?  A.  I  think  I  men- 
tioned some  of  them.  Mr.  Cheney,  the  principal  assistant  of  the  city 
engineer's  office,  Mr.  Tiukham  —  I  mentioned  those  because  they  are 
both  men  of  very  extensive  experience  in  bridges ;  Mr.  Howe,  the 
assistant  of  the  engineer's  office  ;  and  with  the  party  was,  —  well,  sir, 
there  are  some  engineers  who,  perhaps,  would  not  like  to  be  brought 
into  this  thing.  I  will  say  that  the  engineer  at  the  Old  Colony  Rail- 
road, Mr.  Morrill,  joined  us  on  our  way,  and  Mr.  John  W.  Ellis;  I 
think  he  is  the  engineer  or  superintendent  of  some  road  connecting 
with  the  Providence. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     The  Providence  and  Worcester  Railroad. 

The  Witness.  And  besides  that,  half  a  dozen  or  perhaps  a  dozen 
of  the  younger  employees  in  the  city  engineer's  office  ;  amongst  them 
were  men  graduates  of  the  Institute  of  Technology  and  of  years'  ex- 
perience since  then. 

Q.  And  you  practically  formed  a  party  and  made  an  excursion  for 
that  purpose?  A.  We  went  for  that  purpose.  As  I  say,  I  came  into 
the  office  under  the  impression  that  the  bridge  was  knocked  down  by 
a  blow  on  the  casting,  but  what  gave  the  blow  on  the  casting  I  had 
not  at  that  time  definitely  attempted  to  frame  in  my  own  mind.     I 


APPENDIX.  293 

saw  in  the  first  instance  that  the  hangers  were  broken,  but  I  had  not 
discovered  the  flaws  in  them. 

Mr.  Kinslkt.  You  need  not  take  time  to  go  over  that  again.  We 
have  got  that  all  down  by  the  shorthand  reporter,  and  it  will  save 
time  if  yon  will  not  repeat  it. 

Mr.  Achorn.  I  only  wanted  to  get  the  names  of  the  engineers 
that  were  with  him. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     He  has  mentioned  some  of  them  before. 

Mr.  Achorn.  I  simply  wanted  to  get  their  names  and  to  know 
that  they  agreed  with  him. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  How  Ions:  have  you  been  familiar  with 
that  bridge,  Mr.  Manley?  A.  Well,  I  will  not  say  I  was  familiar 
with  it  all. 

Q.  I  mean  to  the  extent  you  have  testified  to,  of  going  over  it  in 
the  train?     A.    About  eleven  or  twelve  years. 

Q.  Have  you,  in  the  course  of  that  time,  driven  under  it  frequently  ? 
A.    Very  often,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  more  or  less  familiar,  from  that,  with  the  construction 
of  the  bridge?     A.    From  its  general  appearance  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.    It  attracted  your  attention,  did  it  not?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  You  knew  it  was  a  bridge  with  two  different  kinds  of  trusses, 
and  it  had  a  very  considerable  skew?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  criticise  to  yourself  or  to  anybody  else  the  mode 
of  construction  of  that  bridge  before  the  accident?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  defects  in  its  construction  did  you  criticise  before  the 
accident?     A.    I  never  have  liked  a  truss  connected  in  this  manner. 

Q.  You  mean  the  two  different  kinds  of  trusses?  A.  No,  sir ; 
what  I  may  call  the  Hewins  truss,  with  a  heavy  top  chord  and  end 
post  on  separate  bases  without  any  good  connection. 

Q.  The  lack  of  continuity  in  the  upper  chord?  A.  That  was  the 
principal  thing. 

Q.  That  you  criticised  ?  A.  That  is  the  principal  point,  the  prin- 
cipal point  to  be  seen.  The  details  of  the  diagonal  bracing  I  never 
followed  very  carefully  ;  that  is  an  important  matter  in  a  skew  bridge, 
with  a  sharp  skew  like  this. 

Q.  The  question  whether  a  truss  of  this  kind,  with  a  top  chord  and 
an  end  post  in  independent  pieces,  was  good  engineering  or  not,  was 
a  moot  question  among  engineers,  was  it  not?  A.  Yes.  sir,  in  times 
past;  but  the  solid,  continuous  chord  people  have  very  much  got  the 
better  of  it  in  later  years. 

Q.  Recently,  yes,  sir ;  but  as  long  ago  as  ten  years,  respectable 
bridge  builders  and  respectable  engineers  built  bridges  of  tins  kind 
and  contended  that  it  was  a  good  mode,  did  they  not?  A.  Well, 
they  built  them  in  the  mode  in  which  any  one  looking  at  this  might 


294  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

suppose  it  was  built;  but  I  think  that  good  bridge  builders  have  usu- 
ally made  a  more  perfect  connection  than  existed  in  this  case.  Upon 
looking  at  it  I  had  no  idea  that  so  imperfect  a  connection  existed. 

Q.  So  far,  then,  as  3-011  could  judge  of  this  bridge  by  looking  at  it, 
it  was  a  style  of  bridge  which  you  did  not  like,  but  which  respectable 
bridge  builders  and  respectable  engineers  have  said  was  a  safe  kind 
of  a  bridge?  A.  Each  truss  taken  separately.  But  it  is  entirely  out 
of  the  usual  course  to  have  two  trusses  of  two  different  designs  in  the 
same  bridge  ;  that  would  excite  remark. 

Q.  I  was  dealing  with  the  Hewins  truss,  because  you  confined  your- 
self to  it.  So  far  as  the  Hewins  truss  was  concerned,  what  I  have 
said  was  correct,  was  it?  A.  It  was,  with  the  exception  that  I  think 
it  is  extremely  uncommon  to  build  that  kind  of  a  bridge  as  a  deck 
bridge,  with  trains  running  so  nearly  to  vulnerable  points  without  ex- 
tremely careful  guards  in  case  of  derailment.  And  that,  as  I  may 
say,  was  my  principal  thought  of  danger  on  that  bridge,  —  in  case  of 
a  derailment,  —  the  thing  that  occurred  to  me  first  when  I  saw  it  was 
down. 

Q.  That  is,  that  a  derailment  would  be  likely  to  knock  the  dis- 
connected truss  to  pieces?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  take  it  that  the  fact  that  the  two  trusses  were  of  different 
kinds,  connected  in  this  way,  can  hardly  have  had  an} thing  to  do 
with  this  accident?     A.    I  think  not,  sir. 

Q.  Or  have  increased  seriously  the  danger  of  the  bridge?  A.  The}' 
may  have  been  of  two  kinds  and  yet  perfectly  good,  I  suppose. 

Q.  And  the  fact  that  the  weight  on  the  smaller  truss  instead  of 
being  distiibuted  over  sixteen  panels  was  concentrated  upon  four  of 
them,  would  not,  necessarily,  provided  the  weight  was  not  too  great, 
make  the  construction  a  bad  one,  would  it?  A.  I  think  that  was  a 
bad  piece  of  construction.  This  accident  did  not  affect  it,  but  an 
imaginable  accident,  perhaps,  might  have  done  so. 

Q.  Would  there  be  any  other  effect  than  that  the  truss  on  the  east 
side  would  carry  less  weight  than  it  would  have  if  its  floor  beams  were 
distributed  more  evenly  over  it?  A.  I  can  imagine  that  a  train  might 
get  off  the  track  and  bring  a  much  larger  weight  upon  one  of  the  four 
points  than  it  was  ever  intended  to  carry,  and  it  might  fall  from  that 
cause. 

Q.  Still,  the  weight  brought  upon  one  point  would  be  carried,  by 
the  truss  system,  to  the  rest  of  the  truss,  would  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  would  mislead,  would  it  not,  to  say  that  all  the  weight  was 
brought  upon  four  points  and  not  upon  sixteen?  A.  That  is,  that 
the  point  of  the  application  of  the  weight  was  upon  four  and  not  upon 
sixteen  points? 

Q.    Would  it  not  be  misleading  to  suppose  that  the  weight  left  on 


APPENDIX.  295 

the  four  points  did  not  distribute  itself  through  the  truss  in  the  same 
manner  or  to  the  same  extent?  A.  No  ;  it  would  not  distribute  it  in 
the  same  manner,  by  an)'  means. 

Q.  Not  to  the  same  extent,  but  in  the  same  manner?  A.  Not  in 
the  same  manner. 

Q.  How  would  it  differ?  A.  It  is  a  double  system  of  trusses.  It 
might  be  carried  by  one  system  and  the  other  might  not  be  doing 
anything. 

Q.  But  it  would  be  carried  through?  A.  It  must,  or  else  the 
bridge  would  go  down. 

Q.  Except  there  is  too  great  weight  put  upon  it?  A.  If  it  does 
not  do  that  it  will  go  down. 

Q.  And  it  does  that  whether  the  application  of  the  weight  is  at  four 
points  or  at  sixteen  points?     A.    If  it  does. 

Q.  But  less  economically ?  A.  No,  sir;  it  brings  a  strain  upon 
the  truss  which  it  was  never  intended  to  bear,  on  certain  portions  of 
it.     It  is  entirely  wrong. 

Q.  At  the  same  time,  as  long  as  too  great  weight  is  not  put  upon 
it  —  A.  If  it  does  not  break  down,  it  carries  it  through  ;  that  is  all 
I  can  say. 

Q.  Something  had  been  said  about  the  nuts  being  off  of  sonic  of 
the  ties  which  extended  from  the  upper  to  the  lower  chord  of  this 
Parker  truss,  — the  nuts  dropping  off  of  the  bottom  chord  of  the 
truss.  What  did  those  nuts  support  when  they  were  on?  A.  I 
remember  that  there  was  a  cast-iron  brace  across  the  bottom,  sus- 
pended by  rods  that  just  held  up  the  weight  of  the  round  bars  making 
the  lower  chord.     There  were  such  rods  as  those. 

Q.   They  simply  held  up  the  weight  of  the  lower  chord?     A.    Kept 

it  from  sagging. 

Q.  They  did  not  take  any  part  of  the  strain  of  the  load  on  the 
bridge?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  the  absence  of  three  or  four  nuts  there  would  not  have 
any  effect  whatever  on  the  strength  of  the  truss,  would  it?  A.  K 
would  cause  these  rods  to  sag  a  little  more  than  they  would  other- 
wise. 

Q.  There  were  sixteen  of  the  ties,  were  there  not?  A.  I  am 
speaking  of  — 

Q.  Perhaps  I  am  speaking  of  a  different  thing  from  what  you  are? 
A.   Those  I  referred  to  were  on  the  Hewins  truss. 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  the  Parker  truss.  There  has  been  some  testi- 
mony that  nuts  were  from  time  to  time  missing?  A.  On  the  Parker 
truss? 

Q.  On  the  under  side  of  the  Parker  truss  ;  and  I  asked  you  what, 
in  the  construction  of  the  Parker  truss,  these  vertical  rods  to  which 


296  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

these  were  attached,  the  rods  on  which  the}-  were,  what  purpose  they 
served  ?     A.    I  do  not  know  of  an}-. 

Q.  If  you  are  not  familiar  with  the  construction  of  it,  I  will  get  it 
from  somebody  else?  A.  I  do  not  know  of  any  that  would  be  an 
essential  part  of  it, — vertical  rods. 

Q.  The  vertical  members  of  that  truss  were  compression  members, 
were  they  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  the  tension  was  on  the  diagonal?    A.    Certainly. 
Q.    So  that  if  there  were  an}-,  they  must  have  been  essential?     A. 
I  cannot  imagine  what  you  mean. 

Q.  Nothing,  at  an}r  rate,  that  could  enter  into  the  strength  of  the 
truss?  A.  I  do  not  know  of  anything;  I  do  not  see  how  they 
could. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  express  your  views,  with  regard  to  this  bridge,  to 
anybody  connected  with  the  railroad?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  Of  course,  if  you  had  had  any  serious  apprehensions  on  account 
of  it,  you  would  have  done  so?  A.  I  should.  The  truss,  to  look 
at,  —  an  engineer  looking  at  that  truss  would  say  that  it  was  put 
together  with  intelligence  ;  that  where  compression  strains  came  on 
the  truss,  members  were  put  to  meet  it,  and  where  tension  would 
naturally  come  on  the  truss  proper,  to  a  certain  extent  means  were 
provided  for  meeting  it ;  that  the  size  looked  as  though  they  might 
be  sufficient ;  the  details  could  not  be  seen. 

Q.  And  the  objections  which  people  who  are  not  educated  engi- 
neers made  to  that  truss  would  be  just  as  likely  to  be  made  to  the  best 
possible  truss,  would  they  not?  A.  Well,  hardly  that ;  hardly  that. 
The  whole  appearance  of  the  truss,  from  riding  under  it,  was  frightful 
to  people  not  accustomed  to  bridges.  I  have  had  people  who  visited 
me,  on  riding  under  it,  say  they  did  not  know  they  went  over  any 
such  looking  thing  as  that,  that  they  would  not  have  dared  to  do  it. 

Q.  Those  things  which  disturbed  them  were  not  the  weak  points 
in  the  bridge,  were  they?     A.    No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Q.  They  were  rather,  perhaps,  the  strength  of  it.  Now,  Mr.  Man- 
ley,  you  say  that  upon  the  breaking  of  these  hangers  you  think  some- 
thing must  have  supported  that  floor  system  ;  but  the  onby  thing  you 
indicate  is  that  I  beam,  I  believe.     A.   That  is  all  that  I  know. 

Q.  Can  you  not  see  all  that  there  is  in  that  photograph?  A.  I 
can  see  all  there  is  in  the  photograph,  I  hope. 

Q.  You  can  see  in  the  photograph  all  that  there  is  in  the  truss  or 
was  in  the  truss?     A.    No,  sir ;   I  cannot  see  the  back  side  at  all. 

Q.  Can  there  be  anything  in  that  truss  that  would  support  that 
floor  beam  that  is  not  visible  in  that  photograph?  A.  I  do  not 
know  ;  probably  not. 

Q.   Will  you  look  and  see  what  there  is?    A.    I  have  looked  at 


APPENDIX.  297 

that.  There  is  nothing  on  this  end  of  it,  as  appears  here,  except  this 
vertical  I  beam. 

Q.  Does  it  not  appear  very  plainly  that  there  is  not  anything  else 
to  support  that  floor  beam  but  this  I  beam?  A.  It  does,  this  end 
of  it. 

Q.  The  first  diagonal  brace  is  on  the  hanger?  A.  "Well,  the  diag- 
onal brace  I  spoke  of,  I  was  looking  for  something  to  hold  up  this 
break. 

Q.    There  is  nothing?     A.    It  held  it  through  the  eye  beam. 

Q.    I  misunderstood  you,  I  thought  you  meant  —     A.    Not  directly. 

Q.  There  is  nothing  but  that  eye  beam  to  prevent  it  from  dropping 
right  down  to  the  ground?     A.    Except  that  and  the  hanger. 

Q.  Those  hangers  gave  way  all  at  once,  did  they  not?  A.  I  do 
not  know  about  that. 

Q.  Looking  at  those  breaks,  is  it  possible  that  those  hangers  should 
have  given  way  so  as  to  let  the  floor  down  any  distance  without  giving 
way  altogether?     A.   On  by  the  very  shortest  distance. 

Q.  "Would  it  be  a  sixteenth  of  an  inch?  It  might  be  a  sixteenth  of 
an  inch,  or  a  hair. 

Q.   Not  more  than  that?     A.    More  or  less. 

Q.   Did  not  that  go  all  at  once?     A.    "Well,  no,  sir;  it  might  not. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  drop  all  at  once  ;  I  do  not  mean  it  might  not  be 
some  time  in  rending  it?  A.  "When  a  crack  is  started,  it  acts  very 
curiously.  It  may  be  extended  a  little  every  time  weight  goes  over 
it.  It  is  conceivable.  I  am  g  ring  now  into  fine  theory,  perhaps,  but 
it  is  conceivable  the  train  went  over  it  and  snapped  that  thing  so  that 
a  crack  was  heard  and  it  did  not  break  the  whole  thing  completely  off, 
but  it  got  off  very  quick. 

Q.  But  until  the  whole  thing  was  broken  completely  off,  it  would 
not  sag,  would  it?     A.    Only  this  very  moderate  distance. 

Q.  Would  it  any  appreciable  distance?  A.  It  might  a  sixteenth 
of  an  inch. 

Q.    Not  enough  to  tear  up  the  track?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Not  enough  to  have  caused  this  accident?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  if  these  hangers  caused  this  accident,  the  first  thing  was 
the  breaking  of  these  hangers,  and  the  letting  of  the  floor  beam  down 
on  to  that  I  beam?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  with  nothing  but  the  I  beam  to  support  it?  A.  'Well, 
perhaps  a  ragged  remnant  of  the  hanger.  Perhaps  this  little  short 
piece  may  have  held  on,  or  this  one  side. 

Q.  Could  there  have  been  any  drop  if  that  held  on?  A.  Only  this 
trifling  one  I  speak  of. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  such  a  drop  as  to  cause  the  smashing  up'  of  the 
floor?    A.   Oh,  no. 


298  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  smashing  up  of  the  floor  must  have  been  very  early  in  this 
disaster,  must  it  not?  The  first  car  having  got  off  the  rails,  and  the 
second  car  having  been  stopped  close  to  the  bridge,  if  not  on  the 
bridge,  all  that  must  have  happened  after  the  breaking  of  the  hangers, 
on  your  theoiy,  must  it  not?  A.  The  whole  of  it  happened  afte 
that,  sir. 

Q.  And  after  the  material  settling  of  the  floor?  A.  It  was  prob- 
able. If  this  beam  here  had  sufficient  strength  to  give  way  gradually, 
the  whole  matter  might  have  been  going  on  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  that  to  be  a  six-inch  I  beam,  hinged  at  the  top 
and  the  bottom,  and  of  a  length  equal  to  the  depth  of  that  truss, 
which  I  think  is  sixteen  feet,  —  (Mr.  Doane  —  About  thirteen  feet) ,  — 
suppose  that  I  beam  to  be  a  six-inch  I  beam,  hinged  at  the  top 
and  the  bottom,  thirteen  feet  long,  how  much  resistance  do  you  think 
that  would  offer  to  the  weight  of  the  train  crossing?  A.  It  may  be 
a  matter  that  may  be  computed. 

Q.  I  mean  aside  from  computation.  A.  I  would  not  undertake  to 
estimate  ;  I  do  not  know  very  well. 

Q.  I  expected  you  would  say  it  would  amount  to  nothing  at  all. 
A.    Oh,  no,  it  would  amount  to  considerable. 

Q.  Would  it  delay  the  falling  clown  of  the  floor  system  materially? 
A.   Oh,  yes  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  it  not  have  crippled  right  up?  A.  It  would  perhaps 
cripple  if  the  cars  were  heavy  enough  to  bring  it  down.  I  have  a 
somewhat  indefinite  idea  of  what  that  would  carry,  but  it  would  cany 
something,  and  something  quite  appreciable.  It  would  delay  matters 
very  decidedl}',  I  should  say. 

Q.  You  would  expect  to  find  that  I  beam  pretty  well  crumpled  up 
if  that  kept  up  that  whole  floor  system  while  three  cars  were  going  over? 
A.  It  might,  or  there  might  be  something  on  the  bottom  here,  that  I 
do  not  understand,  that  came  away  and  left  that  substantially  whole. 
I  do  not  know  what  condition  that  was  in,  have  not  seen  it  since,  and 
do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Supposing  that  the  I  beam  was  an  insufficient  support,  there  is 
nothing  else  to  prevent  that  floor  going  down,  I  understand  you? 
A.    I  do  not  know  of  anything. 

Q.  And  if  the  floor  did  go  down,  you  cannot  see  how  those  cars 
could  have  got  over?  A.  I  am  not  absolutely  certain  about  that.  I 
have  not  gone  into  any  computation  of  time,  —  of  speed  in  relation  to 
whether  they  could  have  pulled  over  there  ;    but  they  evidently  did. 

Q.  They  evidenth'  did.  What  we  are  at  is  to  see  whether  this 
could  have  been  the  cause  or  whether  there  may  not  have  been 
some  other  cause.     Now,  if  the  floor  was  all  gone,  can  you  conceive 


APPENDIX.  299 

of  three  cars,  each  fifty  feet  in  length,  going  over  that  place?  A. 
With  the  floor  all  gone? 

Q.    Yes.     A.    Hardly;  I  should  not  expect  that. 

Q.  I  mean  if  the  floor  timber  dropped  and  the  stringers  dropped 
with  it?  A.  If  the  floor  timber  had  dropped  right  vertically  out  of 
the  way,  I  should  expect  to  see  the  cars  go  down  at  an  earlier  period 
on  that  train  than  they  did. 

Q.  The  track  stringers  are  truss  beams  whose  ends  rest  on  these 
floor  beams,  are  they  not?     A.    Apparently. 

Q.  And  these  ends  rest  one  on  the  post  and  the  other  on  the  abut- 
ment?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  when  they  went,  the  floor  beam  would  go  too?  A.  When 
the  floor  beam  went  this  end  would  go. 

Q.  The  ends  resting  on  the  floor  beam?  A.  They  would  be  all  in 
one  boat  together. 

Q.  Now,  the  third  car  is  represented  by  everybody  as  having  rattled 
over  the  ties  on  the  bridge.  Can  you  imagine  any  ties  there  to  be 
rattled  over  after  that  floor  beam  and  this  stringer  had  been  let  down 
by  the  engine  going  over?  A.  I  do  not  see  how  it  should  affect  the 
ties  unless  the  previous  scraping  of  the  forward  cars  had  taken  them 
out  of  the  way. 

Q.  Would  not  the  ties  be  knocked  right  off  by  the  first  car  that 
went  over  them  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  but  they  were  ;  they  might  have 
been. 

Q.  They  would  not  be  likely  to  hold  a  car  up,  —  the  ties  and  the 
rails?     A.    Certainly  they  would. 

Q.  Without  any  stringer  under  them?  A.  Oh,  with  nothing  under 
them?  But  they  are  resting  on  something  else ;  and  if  this  drops 
down,  everything,  —  they  would  not. 

Q.  But  I  say  if  the  floor  timber  dropped  down  and  carried  the 
track  stringers  with  it,  the  cars  could  not  have  got  over  on  the  sleepers 
without  the  rails?  A.  The  rail  resting  on  the  bottom,  and  that  rest- 
ing on  nothing? 

Q.   Yes.     A.    Certainty  not. 

Q.  Then  the  fact  that  the  third  car  got  over,  rattling  over  the 
sleepers,  would  indicate  that  there  must  have  been  something  there  to 
support  the  stringers  at  that  time,  would  it  not,  and  they  could  not 
have  gone  down  at  that  time?  A.  There  is  the  matter  of  time  that 
comes  in  and  the  speed  of  the  train.  If  there  was  sufficient  speed  on 
the  train,  and  a  little  delay,  even  if  this  gave  it  but  a  few  seconds  or 
a  very  short  time  of  delay,  I  would  look  at  the  time  necessarj-  to  get 
this  train  over  in  this  broken  condition.  The  thing  must  have  gone, 
of  course,  as  we  know,  pretty  soon  after  that;  pretty  soon  after  that 
car  got  over,  or  half-way  over. 


300  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Well,  if  the  train  was  going  fifteen  miles  an  hour,  that  would  be 
nineteen  feet  a  second,  and  that  would  give  you  two  seconds  and  a 
half,  would  it  not.  for  a  fifty-foot  car?     A.    Perhaps  so. 

Q.  Then  the  checking  up  and  the  stopping  of  the  second  car  and 
the  telescoping,  that  would  diminish  the  speed  and  increase  the  num- 
ber of  seconds  to  each  car,  would  it  not?  A.  That  is  all  very  true, 
with  the  assumption  of  that  rate  of  speed  ;  but  that  is  an  assumption. 
There  are  certain  things  about  it  that  indicate  greater  speed  than 
that,  to  me. 

Q.  I  put  you  the  question  on  that  assumption  because  that  is  the 
only  testimony  we  have  as  to  speed.  A.  With  that  assumption  the 
time  is  correct. 

Q.  That  would  make  fifteen  seconds  with  accounting  for  the  retar- 
dation of  the  second  car?     A.    I  do  not  quite  follow  you. 

Q.  I  mean  going  over.  A.  Two  and  a  half  seconds  for  each  car 
would  be  about  seven  seconds. 

Q.  And  that  is  without  allowing  for  the  retardation  by  the  derail- 
ment? A.  Yes,  sir  ;  at  fifteen  miles  an  hour  that  is  the  rate  at  which 
the  train  was  moving,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  It  would  get  down  to  something  less  afier  the  stopping  of  the 
second  car?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  would  take  ten  or  fifteen  seconds,  would  it  not?  A.  It 
might ;  of  course  there  would  be  the  momentum  of  the  balance  of  the 
train  shoving  up  from  behind. 

Q.  You  think  that  I  beam  could  have  held  that  up  for  ten  or 
fifteen  seconds  without  being  seriously  crippled?  A.  I  do  not  know  ; 
I  presume  it  did.  Ten  or  fifteen  seconds?  Nd  ;  I  do  not  say  as  much 
as  that. 

Q.  Well,  for  ten  seconds?  A.  I  do  not  know  the  length  of  time. 
I  do  not  know  how  much  that  will  sustain  ;  it  is  a  matter  which  re- 
quires a  little  mathematical  computation. 

Q.  Without  crippling?  A.  Without  crippling;  yes,  sir.  If  the 
bottom  gave  wray  gradually  and  lowered  it  down  two  or  three  feet  it 
might  endure  for  that  time. 

Q.  Then  you  think,  on  the  whole,  it  is  more  philosophical  to  sup- 
pose that  I  beam  held  that  weight  for  that  time  than  to  believe 
there  was  derailment  from  some  unknown  cause?  That  is  the  amount 
of  it,  is  it  not?  A.  That  is  about  the  point;  yes,  sir,  probably. 
And  the  further  fact  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  improbability  — 

Q.  Derailments  from  unknown  causes  are  not  infrequent?  A. 
Derailments  are  not  infrequent. 

Q.  And  from  causes  that  do  not  get  discovered  ?  A.  I  presume 
so.    I  am  not  so  familiar  with  railroad  derailments  as  to  give  an  opin- 


APPENDIX.  301 

Ion.    But  the  coincidence  is  too  convenient  altogether,  the  supposition 
of  a  derailment  over  such  a  very  damaging  piece  of  iron  work. 

Q.    There  certainly  was  derailment?    A.    Some  say  there  was. 

Q.  There  was  derailment  the  very  instant  after  this  happened? 
There  was  derailment  before  the  cars  got  on  the  bridge?  A.  Before 
some  car,  I  do  not  know  which. 

Q.  Before  the  second  car  got  on  the  bridge?  A.  The  ties  indi- 
cate that  fact. 

Q.  And  the  fact  that  one  of  the  rails  was  scraped  up  by  the  second 
car?  A.  There  is  no  doubt  there  was  derailment  in  some  stage  of 
the  proceedings,  and  a  general  smash  ;  the  precise  order  of  the  event 
I  presume  this  inquiry  may  determine  better  than  I  can. 

Q.  You  would  rather  suppose  that  a  six-inch  I  beam  carried 
three  cars  over  this  bridge  without  buckling  rather  than  that  this 
derailment  was  caused  by  some  accident  we  do  not  understand?  A. 
I  would  rather  suppose  that  this  arrangement  of  the  I  beam  helped 
to  lengthen  out  the  time  that  was  available  for  the  forward  part  of  the 
train  to  scrape  ashore  than  from  any  other  cause  ;  I  think  it  is  more 
probable. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Do  you  know  whether  that  I  beam 
was  braced  or  not,  the  one  that  holds  up  the  stringer?  A.  No;  it 
was  in  use  as  a  column. 

Q.  It  was  not  braced  itself?  A.  It  could  not  have  been,  if  that 
photograph  is  correct. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  am  showing  Mr.  Manley  a  photograph  which  I 
will  mark  "  V." 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Examine  this  photograph  marked  "V," 
and  look  at  the  double  I  beam  in  the  right-hand  corner  leaning 
against  the  abutment,  and  state  if  you  can  say  what  it  is.  A.  It  is  a 
trussed  floor  beam  ;  that  is  the  most  I  can  say  about  it.  This  is  look- 
ing towards  the  Boston  end? 

Mr.  Putnam.     Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  and  Mr.  Manley  misunderstand  each  other. 
Looking  toward  Boston  from  the  south  side,  from  the  Roslindale 
side? 

Mr.  Putnam.     Yes. 

The  Chairman.'    Do  you  understand? 

The  Witness.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  floor  beam  on  which  the  right-hand  end  rested 
on  the  abutment  and  the  left-hand  end  hung  in  these  hangers?  A.  It 
is  quite  possible. 

Q.  From  its  position,  is  it  not  obvious?  A.  It  is  probable  ;  yes, 
sir. 

Q.    It  is  just  where  that  floor  beam  would  have  fallen,  and  it  is 


302  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

where  you  saw  it?     A.    It  very  likely  is;  I  have  not  a  very  vivid 
recollection  about  it,  but  it  is  probable.    I  will  take  your  word  for  it. 

Q.  I  want  your  judgment.  A.  1  do  not  know,  but  it  is  probable 
it  is.     I  would  not  give  any  judgment  in  answer  to  that. 

Q.  But  you,  as  an  engineer,  familiar  with  the  ground  and  familiar 
with  the  construction,  could  tell  whether  it  must  not  be  that?  A.  I 
never  saw  the  photograph  before.  It  very  probabl}' is  ;  1  certainly 
could  not  dispute  it. 

Q.  Well,  there  is  the  seat  of  the  north  end  of  the  He  wins  truss, 
up  here  is  the  seat  of  the  north  end  of  the  Parker  truss,  this  is  the 
buttress  about  in  the  middle  of  the  bridge,  there  is  car  No.  7 
in  the  middle  of  the  road,  there  is  car  No.  6,  and  from  its  position 
towards  the  abutment  and  towards  the  car,  from  its  neighborhood  to 
the  bridge  seat,  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  the  floor  beam  which  was  hung 
to  these  hangers?     A.    It  looks  as  though  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  other  truss  floor  beam  in  that 
picture  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  There  is  a  truss  stringer,  but  no  other  floor  beam  ; 
there  is  a  broken-up  stringer. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Manley,  just  look  under  that  floor  beam  with  those 
four  iron  rods  and  tell  me  what  those  are?  A.  They  look  as  though 
the}'  might  be  ;  they  are  the  lower  chord  of  the  Hewins  truss. 

Q.  It  is  the  lower  chord  of  the  Hewins  truss,  is  it  not,  without  any 
doubt?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that,  looking  at  the  other  photograph,  has  a  joint  which 
appears  directly  under  the  I  beam?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  is  a  cast-iron  casting  appended  to  the  lower  end  of 
the  I  beam,  is  it  not?  A.  The  lower  end  of  the  I  beam?  (Re- 
ferring to  the  large  photograph.)     I  do  not  know  ;  it  looks  like  it. 

Q.  Well,  that  shows  that,  at  an}*  rate,  does  it  not,  the  floor  beam 
and  the  truss  went  down  together,  and  that  the  floor  beam  did  not  go 
down  by  itself  before  the  truss  fell  ?  A.  It  shows  that  this  chord 
reached  the  bottom  before  the  floor  beam  did.  If  it  has  not  been 
disturbed,  that  would  indicate  that. 

Q.  It  indicates  that  the  lower  chord  of  the  Hewins  truss  reached  the 
ground  before  the  floor  beam  did?     A.    Yes;  I  presume  that  is  true. 

Q.  Then  it  shows  conclusively  that  the  hangers  did  not  absolutely 
give  way  and  let  the  floor  beam  down  before  the  truss  went  over? 
A.    Not  at  all. 

Q.  Either,  then,  the  whole  truss  went  down  together,  including  this 
floor  beam  and  the  hanger,  or  else  your  theory  that  the  I  beam 
supported  the  load  is  true  ?  A.  That  would  come  into  play.  The 
other  end  of  that  beam,  —  how  is  that?  Is  that  on  the  truss  or  on 
the  abutment? 


APPENDIX.  303 

Q.  On  the  abutment.  A.  Is  it  secured  there  in  any  way?  It 
might  have  held  for  an  instant,  until  they  got  ahead  of  it.  There  are 
ways  enough  to  account  for  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  there  to  show  that  the  floor  beam  might 
not  have  fallen  upon  the  lower  chord  of  the  truss  and  rested  there 
until  the  chord  gave  way  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  Only  that  the  floor  beam  falling  thirteen  or  fourteen 
feet  above  the  truss  would  naturally  break  it. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  track  and  the  whole  arrangement  of  it 
and  the  cars  being  thrown  oft*  to  the  left  of  the  connection  with  the 
abutment  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  If  the  floor  beam  went,  it  certainly  did  not  carry  any 
cars  with  it.  It  went  right  down,  unless  it  was  supported,  as  Mr. 
Mauley  says,  by  that  I  beam.  That  is  quite  consistent  with  Mr. 
Man  ley's  theor}'. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  iron-work  in  the  middle  of  this 
bridge  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  do  not  know.  If  Mr.  Manley  can  answer,  I  wish 
he  would. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Were  there  not  braces  right  across  from 
the  lower  chord  to  the  other?  A.  There  is  a  certain  amount  of 
diagonal  bracing  in  the  floor  system,  — where  it  was  or  must  have  been 
or  what  it  would  be  I  do  not  know. 

(>.  Was  that  sufficient  to  support  that  truss  floor  beam,  provided 
there  was  no  weight  upon  the  truss  floor  beam,  simply  its  own  weight? 
A.    It  might  have  that  effect. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Was  there  anything  there  that  could  catch 
that  end  of  the  floor  beam?  A.  This  might  have  caught  for  an  in- 
stant, or  caught  in  that  little  rod. 

Q.  Would  that  be  likely  to  throw  it  on  to  this  chord?  A.  It 
might. 

The  Chairman.  That  floor  beam  would  not  have  come  down  by 
itself  with  all  this  wood-work  on  it? 

Mr.  Putnam.  It  would  leave  the  wood- work,  and  the  wood- work 
might  come  on  top  of  it  or  not.  My  point  is,  that  whenever  the  floor 
beam  went  down  the  chord  went  down. 

The  Witness.  If  it  dropped  free  and  clear.  It  might  have  been 
hung,  or  not.  There  is  a  little  rod  there  ;  I  do  not  know  what  these 
are.  There  may  have  been  something  that  caught,  I  do  not  know 
what.  I  do  not  believe  it  did  go  down  ;  however,  it  might  have  gone 
down  and  struck  on  the  lower  chord  itself. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  How  could  it  strike  there?  A.  It  might 
strike  on  the  edge  of  this  wall,  and  that  would  throw  it  in  there,  giving 
this  end  a  free  drop. 


304  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Manley's  theory  is  that  that  end  was  sup- 
ported and  this  would  go  down  first. 

The  Witness.  Then  it  might  sail  off  in  this  direction  ;  but  that  is 
pretty  wild  speculation. 

Mr.  Putnam.  It  is  simply  illustration  ;  but  I  ask  everybody  if  it 
is  not  so. 

Q.  Now,  would  it  not  rather  conflict  with  your  opinion  if  it  turned 
out  that  that  beam  was  not  buckled  at  all,  but  sprung  right  out  straight 
and  whole?     A.    Not  necessarily. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  could  have  supported  the  weight  of  the  floor 
beam  with  the  four  truss  stringers  and  the  three  cars  without  buckling? 
A.  One  at  a  time  it  may  have  done  so  ;  I  do  not  know  how  strong 
it  is. 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  is  a  6-inch  I  beam. 
Mr.  Doane.     A  5-inch  I  beam. 

Q.  Could  it  have  supported  that  weight  without  buckling?  A.  I 
do  hot  know,  sir ;  I  think  it  htdped  it. 

Q.    Do  you  think  it  could?     A.    I  think  it  helped  the  beam. 
Q.   Did  it  not  do  the  whole?     What  else  was  there ?     That  was  all 
after  the  hangers  were  gone?     A.   Certainly,  until  something  else  gave 
way. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  a  6-inch  I  beam,  in  your  judgment, 
supported  the  weight  of  this  heavily  trussed  floor  beam,  and  the  four 
heavily  trussed  stringers  that  rested  on  it,  and  the  superstructure  of 
the  road  on  that,  and  of  three  cars  going  over  at  the  rate  of  speed 
that  they  did,  without  buckling?  A.  It  appears  to  me  it  must  have 
had  a  sufficient  amount  of  supporting  power  to  have  lengthened  out 
the  time  necessary  for  the  train  to  scrape  ashore. 

Q.  You  assume  it  must  have?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  forced  to  that 
conclusion. 

Q.  And  you  are  forced  to  it  because  you  will  not  admit  the  possi- 
bility of  a  derailment?  A.  The  derailment  story  is  too  handy  al- 
together to  come  in  at  the  point  where  these  broken  hangers  were. 

Q.  It  is  about  as  bad  as  an  alibi,  is  it  not?  A.  I  will  accept  a 
pretty  wild  theoiy  that  will  agree  with  the  view  that  these  things  gave 
way  before  I  will  accept  one  that  has  some  points  in  its  favor  that  has 
to  admit  something  else ;  because  that  is  the  most  material  point  of 
evidence  in  the  whole  structure,  to  nry  mind ;  I  cannot  get  over  it  in 
any  way. 

Q.  If  there  had  been  a  derailment  of  the  first  car,  and  a  derailment 
of  the  kind  to  tear  up  the  sleepers  and  the  track,  it  would  have  caused 
all  that  has  appeared  here,  including  broken  hangers,  would  it  not? 
A.    It  might ;  it  might  very  well ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  yet  you  think  it  is  more   probable  that  that  little  skunk 


APPENDIX.  305 

should  support  that  load?  A.  That  little  skunk  would  do  consider- 
able. 

Q.  You  call  it  a  wild  hypothesis?  A.  No  ;  I  do  not  call  it  wild,  it 
is  the  best  one  I  have  got. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  think  we  have  got  your  views,  Mr.  Mauley,  and 
you  have  been  very  candid  with  us.  If  you  can  tell  us  how  much 
those  bright  fractures  would  support,  I  would  like  to  know. 

The  Witness.  You  have  got  too  much  supposition  in  that  matter. 
When  a  crack  is  started  I  will  not  guess  as  to  the  strength  of  the  bal- 
ance of  the  remaining  iron.  It  is  in  the  very  worst  condition  to 
break.  When  a  break  is  started  it  has  got  a  leverage  on  the  immedi- 
ate fibres.  I  will  not  say  that  with  a  crack  like  that  it  would  be  safe 
for  a  cat  to  go  across  on  it  at  all.     I  would  not  go  into  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  should  like  to  know  what  that  amount  of  iron 
would  sustain. 

The  Witness.     Put  in  a  plain  bar,  it  is  eas}'  enough  to  compute. 

Q.  Then  you  can  compute  what  would  have  been  held  up  by  the 
amount  of  iron  remaining  after  this  crack?  A.  If  it  had  had  a  fair 
chance. 

Q.  Assuming  it  had  a  fair  chance?  A.  You  are  assuming  impos- 
sibilities.    It  did  not  have  a  fair  chance. 

Mr.  Putnam.     Well,  let  it  go. 

George  L.  Vose  —  recalled. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Professor  Vose,  have  you  examined  that 
contract?     A.   Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  just  read  it  through. 

Q.  Will  you  give  your  opinion  in  regard  to  that?  A.  In  the  first 
place,  it  says  the  bridge  shall  carry  three  thousand  pounds  to  the  run- 
ning foot  besides  the  concentrated  load  on  the  driving  wheels  of  eight 
thousand  pounds.  It  should  have  said,  I  suppose  he  meant  to  say, 
substantially,  the  concentrated  load  of  eight  thousand  pounds  on  each 
one  of  the  driving  wheels.  Then  there  is  a  blind  clause  there  in 
which  he  says  the  tension  truss  shall  sustain  so  much,  and  then  the 
compression  truss  shall  sustain  a  proportionate  amount.  I  do  not 
know  what  that  means.  But  looking  at  the  whole  specification,  I  can 
say  this,  you  might  get  a  bridge  out  of  it,  and  you  might  not.  There 
is  no  drawing,  nothing  to  show  how  the  thing  is  to  be  put  together, 
nothing  that  covers  these  hook  points  in  this  whole  thing.  I  have 
seen  lots  of  specifications  of  that  kind.  You  might  get  a  bridge  out  of 
it,  and  you  might  not  get  any  bridge  at  all. 

Q.  Were  the  requirements  sufficient?  A.  Yes,  as  regards  the 
strength,  ten  thousand  pounds  to  the  inch,  the  requirements  are  right. 
The  requirements  in  regard  to  the  elasticity  and  quality  of  the  iron 
are  all  ri<iht. 


30f>  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Putnam,  if  it  is  agreeable  to  you,  I  think  we 
will  adjourn  until  Friday  of  this  week,  at  which  time  we  will  have 
Professor  Swain  and  then  put  on  Mr.  Philbrick  and  Mr.  Doane  and 
close  the  hearing  on  Friday  or  Saturday,  I  hope.  I  postpone  the 
hearing  until  Friday,  in  order  that  we  may  be  able  in  the  meantime  to 
look  through  the  testimony  and  see  on  what  points  it  may  be  defec- 
tive and  on  what  |  oints  we  may  desire  to  fill  up  any  gaps. 

Adjourned  until  Friday,  April  1,  at  10.30  a.m. 


ELEVENTH    DAY. 

Friday,  April  1,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  10.30. 

Walter  E.  White  —  recalled. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  When  you  left  Roslindale  did  you  know 
how  much  steam  you  had  up?  A.  When  we  were  standing  there  by 
Roslindale  1  believe  we  had  105  pounds  of  steam.  I  would  like  to 
say  that  a  few  days  before  the  accident,  the  Friday  before  the  acci- 
dent, I  had  another  stack  put  on  my  engine,  and  she  didn't  steam  well 
with  it,  because  it  was  four  inches  smaller  in  the  waist,  and  she  wasn't 
steaming  very  brisk.  She  was  making  from  90  to  105  pounds  of 
steam  with  the  stack,  but  what  steam  I  had  when  I  got  to  the  bridge 
1  don't  know  ;  I  didn't  notice  ;  I  have  no  idea.  It  was  less  than 
that,  because  she  would  lose  all  the  way  down. 

Q.  How  much  less  than  105  pounds,  should  you  think?  A.  Be- 
tween the  stations  she  would  go  down  to  about  90  or  95  pounds. 

Q.  Were  you  using  all  the  steam  3*011  bad  from  the  time  you  left 
Roslindale?     A.    No,  sir;  very  little  steam. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  started  ?  A.  The  way  I  started  from  that  sta- 
tion, as  1  came  down  —  by  the  order  of  you  commissioners  we  are  to 
stop  short  of  that  crossing.  I  came  down  with  the  brake  fully  on,  so 
as  to  be  sure  to  stop  short  of  that  crossing. 

Q.  Of  which  crossing?  A.  Of  the  street  crossing  there  at  the 
Roslindale  station.  We  have  had  orders  to.  And  I  applied  the 
brake  and  put  it  on  full  head,  so  as  to  be  sure  to  stop  short  of 
the  crossing.  By  doing  that  way  it  makes  the  train  very  bard  to 
pull.  The  brakes  don't  give  way  easy  ;  they  run  quite  a  ways,  some- 
times further  than  others,  before  they  are  let  off.  I  al\va}rs,  in  start- 
ing from  that  particular  place,  hook  my  engine  up  and  give  her  steam 


APPENDIX.  307 

enough  to  start  with.  Sometimes  she  won't  start  at  all,  and  I  have  to 
strike  it  down  a  notch  or  two  more.  When  she  starts,  [f  she  is  going 
ahead  too  fast,  I  shut  off;  if  she  is  going  still  faster,  I  put  the  brake 
on  ;  and  if  not,  if  she  is  going  too  hard,  I  work  steam,  as  I  did  this 
morning. 

Q.  Exactly  what  did  you  do  that  Monday  morning?  A.  That 
Monday  morning  I  was  working  steam  ;  when  the  accident  happened, 
I  wasn't  running  over  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour. 

Q.  How  much  did  you  put  on?  A.  I  put  on  just  a  little,  perhaps 
two  or  three  notches,  just  enough  to  start  the  train  with  ;  and  then 
probably  I  opened  the  throttle  a  little  more  after  I  got  the  train 
started.  I  generally  go  down  slower  there  than  I  do  anywhere  else. 
Not  that  I  was  afraid  of  the  bridge,  but  it  was  the  surroundings,  —  a 
kind  of  poky  hole. 

Q.  How  far  open  do  you  think  you  had  it?  A.  I  had  it  open 
probabl}-  two  or  three  notches  ;  just  gave  her  the  least  mite  of  steam. 
Now,  I  want  to  make  this  thing  as  plain  as  I  can.  This  morning  (to- 
day) I  had  a  train  that  I  had  to  work  my  engine  hard  all  the  way.  I 
had  to  work  her  smart,  and  I  was  four  minutes  behind  my  time.  I 
had  to  work  her  hard  all  the  wa}-,  for  the  very  reason  that  some  of  the 
brakes  had  been  fixed,  and  they  had  not  been  adjusted  as  they  ought 
to  have  been.  Some  of  the  brakes  would  bear  harder  against  the 
wheels  than  others.  Some  were  solid  against  the  wheels,  and  they 
got  too  hot  to  work  easy,  and  I  had  to  work  pretty  hard  to  get  up 
speed  at  all.  We  have  all  these  conditions  to  contend  with.  Another 
morning,  perhaps,  the  train  will  run  along  smooth  and  eas}\ 

<_,).  How  was  the  train  running  on  the  morning  of  the  accident? 
A.   Not  so  hard  as  it  was  this  morning  ;  it  was  uncommon  bad  to-da}\ 

Q.  Were  the  brakes  working  all  right  on  the  morning  of  the  acci- 
dent?    A.    They  were  all  right,  as  far  as  I  know,  at  Roslindale. 

Q.  And  there  were  no  automatic  brakes?  A.  Straight  air  on  my 
train. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  You  don't  use  the  automatic  at  all  on  that 
branch?  A.  One  trip,  I  do.  We  have  some  trains  that  have  all  au- 
tomatic brakes,  but  all  the  cars  are  not  fitted  for  it ;  they  are  getting 
round  to  it  as  fast  as  they  can. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  the  brakes  were  applied  by  hand 
that  morning?     A.    1  shouldn't  say  they  were. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  any  of  the  cars  after  the  accident  to  see 
whether  the  brakes  had  been  set?     A.    No,  sir;  1  didn't. 

Q.  What  is  the  distance  from  Roslindale  station  to  the  bridge?  A. 
I  shouldn't  say  it  was  a  great  deal  mure  than  a  quarter  of  a  mile  ;  it 


308  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

might  be  a  quarter  of  a  mile  and  might  be  a  little  more  ;  it  is  about  all 
on  a  curve. 

Q.  On  what  do  you  base  your  estimate  that  you  were  going  only 
aboul  fifteen  miles  an  hour?  A.  Well,  as  near  as  my  judgment  can 
tell.  Take  me  on  the  engine  and  I  can  tell  pretty  near  what  I  am 
going.  Perhaps  it  might  have  been  a  little  less  and  might  have  been 
a  little  more.  I  can  judge  pretty  near  what  speed  I  am  running.  I 
don't  know  how  I  can  explain  it. 

Q.  When  you  looked  at  the  results  of  the  accident  afterwards, 
didn't  it  seem  to  you  that  you  must  have  been  running  more  than 
fifteen  miles  an  hour?  A.  No,  sir  ;  not  by  the  position  of  those  three 
cars,  that  run  about  the  length  of  the  cars  off  the  bridge. 

Q.  The  first  car  ran  about  how  far?  A.  Only  a  little  over  three 
car  lengths,  where  it  stopped. 

Q.    It  ran  its  own  length,  didn't  it?     A.    It  ran  its  own  length. 

Q.  And  how  many  more?  A.  Two  cars  besides  ;  it  ran  a  little 
more  than  the  length  of  three  cars. 

Q.  Where  was  the  rear  of  the  third  car,  —  how  far  from  the  abut- 
ment?    A.    Not  but  a  few  feet,  if  I  remember  right. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  seeing  the  top  of  the  fourth  car  on  the  abut- 
ment?    A.   No,  sir  ;  I  don't. 

Q.  Are  you  very  sure  that  you  were  not  going  as  much  as  twenty 
miles  an  hour?     A.    Yes,  sir ;  I  am.     I  should  say  I  was  not. 

Q.   You  were  running  with  steam  on?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  your  brakes  set  at  any  time  after  you  left  Roslindale? 
A.  Wei',  they  don't  let  off  very  readily.  I  run  down  there  quite  a 
piece  before  the  brakes  are  all  let  off. 

Q.  How  far  did  you  run  before  the  brakes  were  let  off?  A.  Some- 
times they  will  not  let  off  for  more  than  twice  the  length  of  nine  cars  ; 
sometimes  they  let  off  sooner  ;  sometimes  not  so  soon  ;  sometimes  I 
have  an  automatic  brake  in  the  train. 

Q.  In  this  case  was  there  any  automatic  brake  on  the  train?  A.  I 
don't  know  whether  there  was  or  not ;  probably  there  was.  We  have 
the  cars  arranged  so  that  they  can  use  either  the  automatic  brake  or 
straight  air.     The  brakemen  attend  to  that ;  I  know  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  You  don't  know,  then,  whether  or  not  there  was  an  automatic 
brake  on  any  car  of  the  train  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  should  think  there  was  ; 
there  would  he  likely  to  be  some  automatic  cars  among  them. 

Q.  Which  car  would  have  been  automatic,  if  any  ?  A.  I  can't 
tell ;  it  might  be  in  one  place  and  it  might  be  in  another. 

Q.  After  you  left  Roslindale  did  you  apply  the  brakes  yourself  at 
any  time?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  confident  that  just  before  you  went  on  to  the  bridge, 
or  just  as  you  went  on   to  the  bridge,  you  didn't  apply  the  brakes? 


APPENDIX.  309 

A.  I  am  sure  I  didn't  apply  the  brakes.  The  last  time  I  applied 
the  brakes  was  at  Roslindale  station. 

Q.  After  leaving  the  bridge,  when  did  you  first  apply  the  brakes? 
A.  I  didn't  apply  any  brakes  that  morning  after  I  left  Roslindale 
station.  I  couldn't  apply  any  brakes  when  my  engine  was  broke  away 
from  the  train  ;   I  was  disconnected. 

Q.  You  didn't  apply  them  when  yon  felt  the  jar,  and  before  or  at 
the  same  time  that  the  train  was  breaking  away  from  you?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  I  didn't  have  time. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Was  there  any  other  reason  for  the  train 
drawing  hard  at  that  time  in  the  morning,  besides  that  the  brakes 
were  liable  to  cling  to  the  rail?  A.  You  take  any  cold  morning  when 
the  cars  have  stood  out  all  nightlong,  the  oil  gets  cold,  they  pull  hard. 
and  it  is  hard  work  to  get  up  any  speed  on  them  until  they  have  run 
quite  a  ways.  I  will  tell  you  a  little  incident.  Last  winter  I  had  a  car 
that  had  stood  out  on  a  very  cold  clay  in  a  snow-storm.  They  put  that 
car  on  the  train  and  the  wheels  wouldn't  turn  round.  The  oil  was 
chilled,  froze  in  so  hard  that  the  wheels  wouldn't  turn  round.  I  get 
trains  under  different  conditions  every  day.  Sometimes,  as  I  tell  you, 
I  have  to  work  steam  smart  to  get  any  speed  at  all,  even  down  hill. 
Then  at  other  times  they  will  go  along  a  good  deal  easier. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  the  tender  full  of  coal  and  water  that 
morning?  A.  It  wasn't  full  of  coal ;  it  had  been  water-ed.  The  coal 
was  probably  about  half  out;  probably  thirty  hundred  or  thirty-live 
hundred  of  coal. 

Q.  But  the  tender  was  full  of  water?  A.  Yes,  sir;  the  tender 
was  full  of  water  when  I  started  from  Dedham. 

Q.  You  started  your  engine  from  Roslindale  with  a  train  of  nine 
cars?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  went  down  that  grade  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  or  twenty  miles 
an  hour?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  got  on  to  the  bridge  and  got  fairly  over  when  you  heard  a 
snap?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  hear  any  snap. 

Mr.  Putnam.  He  didn't  say  he  heard  any  snap;  it  was  the  fire- 
man who  said  he  heard  a  snap. 

Q.    But  you  felt  the  tail  end  of  your  engine  go  down  a  little? 

Mr.  Putnam.     I  don't  think  he  said  that. 

A.   No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  say  that. 

Q.    You  saw  the  forward  end  go  up?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  got  on  the  other  side  of  the  abutment  and  looked  back  and 
saw  those  cars  behind,  with  the  exception  of  three,  going  down  into 
the  street?  A.  No,  sir;  I  didn't  see  the  cars  when  they  went  into 
the  street. 


310  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Very  well;  you  saw  the  three  cars  that  came  up?  A.  I  saw 
the  two  first  cars  that  came  up  ;  the  third  car  I  didn't  see. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this:  Do  you  suppose  that  if  you 
were  running  only  fifteen  or  twenty  miles  an  hour  you  could  have 
hauled  those  three  cars  up  that  incline  with  your  engine?  A.  I  don't 
know  as  there  was  much  incline  ;  I  didn't  feel  an}7  incline.  I  didn't 
feel  as  though  I  was  going  down  when  I  went  over  the  bridge. 

Q.  No ;  but  you  saw  the  front  of  your  engine  going  up.  What  I 
want  to  get  at  is  this :  I  have  no  doubt  that  3011  are  thoroughly  confi- 
dent that  you  were  only  going  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  or  twenty  miles 
an  hour ;  and  I  want  to  know  if  3-ou  think  if  you  were  going  only  fif- 
teen or  twenty  miles  an  hour  your  engine  would,  with  that  rate  of 
speed,  have  brought  those  three  cars  up  on  the  Boston  side  of  the 
bridge?     A.    I  think  it  would,  under  the  conditions. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  you  know  when  you  let  go  from  the 
cars?     A.    Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Q.  Where  were  30U  at  the  time  you  let  go?  A.  Right  to  the 
abutment. 

Q.  How  far  on  the  abutment?  A.  Right  exactly  on  it.  When 
the  shock  came  that  is  the  time  that  I  consider  that  I  left  tbe  train. 

Q.  Do  you  know  exactly  where  you  were  when  3'ou  felt  that  shock? 
A.  I  was  looking  round,  and  I  saw  it  on  the  forward  truck,  felt  it 
there,  then  on  the  drivers  ;  then  I  turned  round  as  quick  as  lightning 
and  saw  the  car  when  it  struck  and  it  jumped  up. 

Q.  Do  3-011  know  exacts  where  you  were  when  you  felt  the  shock 
on  the  forward  wheels?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  about  the  length  of  my 
engine  on  the  bridge,  looking  this  wa3'. 

Q.  That  is,  you  felt  the  rise  of  the  forward  wheels  before  you  got 
off  of  the  bridge,  did  you?  A.  Yes,  sir;  as  1  was  coming  right  on 
the  abutment. 

Q.  Just  as  you  j^ourself  were  coming  on  to  the  abutment,  or  the 
forward  wheels?  A.  Just  as  my  forward  wheels  were  coming  on  the 
abutment.     I  was  looking  out,  and  I  saw  the  engine  jerk  up. 

Q.  Just  as  the  forward  wheels  came  on  to  the  abutment?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  right  hand  or  the  left?  A.  I  can't  tell  about  that ;  but 
the  shock  was  heavier  on  the  right-hand  side. 

Q.  That  is  the  side  you  stand  on?  A.  That  is  the  side  I  was  sit- 
ting on. 

Q.  That,  you  think,  is  the  moment  when  the  first  car  broke  loose? 
A.  When  the  tender  got  over.  The  car  didn't  break  loose  until  the 
tender  got  over  the  bridge. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that?  A.  Because  I  was  looking  back,  and 
I  saw  the  cars  when  they  jumped. 


APPENDIX.  311 

Q.  Had  all  the  cars  broken  lose  when  you  looked  back?  No, 
sir;  there  was  no  part  of  the  train  broke  loose  until  that  car  came  to 
the  abutment;  that  was  the  very  instant  that  it  parted. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  you  now,  when  you  looked  back  the  first 
car  was  still  attached  to  the  tender?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  everything  was 
going  smooth  when  I  first  looked  back.  There  had  been  no  jump  ; 
because  I  saw  the  car  just  before  it  came  to  the  abutment. 
Q.  Did  3'ou  see  the  car  jump?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  did. 
Q.  Did  you  see  it  break  loose?  A.  I  didn't  see  it  when  it  broke 
loose.  Yes  ;  of  course  I  was  looking  at  it,  and  I  saw  the  instant  the 
car  jumped. 

Q.  Did  you  see  where  the  car  was  at  that  moment?  A.  Yes,  sir ; 
it  was  right  to  the  abutment. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  rear  trucks  fly  out  from  under  it?  A.  Yes, 
sir ;  I  did. 

Q.  Howr  did  the  rear  trucks  seem  to  go  from  under  it?  A.  The 
one  on  the  west  side  of  the  track. 

Q.  The  one  on  the  west  side  of  the  track  flew  out  suddenly?  A. 
Yres,  sir ;  suddenly. 

Q.  It  didn't  gradually  drag  out?  A.  No,  sir  ;  it  didn't  drag  out ; 
it  flew  out,  the  way  I  looked  at  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  were  late  that  morning,  were  you 
not?  A.  A  little  later  than  usual.  I  am  always  late  at  Forest  Hills. 
Q.  How  late  were  you  that  morning?  A.  Well,  I  was  there 
about  seventeen  or  eighteen  minutes  past ;  I  am  due  at  fifteen  min- 
utes past.  I  never  got  there  on  time.  I  would  have  been  late  into 
Boston  that  morning,  if  I  had  ever  got  there. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Did  you  see  where  the  rear  of  the  first  car 
was  when  the  second  truck  flew  out  from  under  it?  A.  It  was  right 
there  on  the  abutment  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Had  the  forward  trucks  of  the  second  car  got  off  the  track  at 
that  time  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  running  on  the  ground  —  the  forward 
trucks  were. 

Q.  Was  it  running  on  the  ground  before  it  got  loose  from  the 
engine?  A.  That  is  when  it  went  off  the  track  ;  it  all  came  at  once  ; 
the  first  truck  parted  at  the  same  time  that  this  car  jumped  up.  That 
is  the  time  the  truck  parted. 

Q.  That  is,  you  think  that  the  truck  parted  the  moment  that  the 
first  car  struck  the  ground?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  truck  or  the  second  truck?  A.  The  first 
truck. 

Q.    Did  you  see  the  second  car  at  all?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    When  the  first  car  left  the  abutment  where  was  the  second  car? 


312  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

A.  The  first  car  came  a  little  in  advance  of  the  second  car,  and  when 
I  saw  the  second  car  it  was  sliding  on  the  rails  and  no  wheels  under  it. 

Q.  Sliding  on  the  bridge  or  on  the  bank?  A.  This  side  of  the 
bridge,  on  the  iron  ;  well,  I  don't  know  as  it  was  on  the  iron.  It  was 
s  iding  on  its  bottom. 

Q.    With  no  trucks  under  it?     A.   No  trucks  under  it. 

Q.  You  only  saw  the  forward  end  of  it,  I  suppose?  A.  I  saw  the 
whole  of  the  second  car. 

Q.  Should  you  say  that  the  whole  of  it  was  without  trucks  on  the 
rail?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  became  of  those  trucks?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
don't. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  the  trucks  of  the  second  car  never  got 
away  from  under  it,  but  were  carried  simply  toward  the  rear?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  I  don't  know  anything  about  it ;  when  I  saw  the  second  car  there 
were  no  wheels  under  it. 

Q.  That  is,  it  looked  so  to  you?  A.  That  is  the  wa}'  it  looked  to 
me.     • 

Q.   Was  it  attached  to  the  first  car?     A.    No,  sir ;  it  wasn't. 

Q.    It  was  separated?     A.    It  was  separated  from  the  first  car. 

Q.  Was  all  this  before  you  put  on  steam  and  started  for  Forest 
Hills?  A.  Just  as  quick  as  I  saw  that,  I  shut  off.  The  instant  that 
I  saw  that  my  engine  jumped  I  shut  her  off.  I  saw  I  was  running 
away  from  them  all  the  time,  and  the  first  impulse  I  had  when  I  saw 
it  was  to  stop.  So  I  threw  her  over  and  reversed  her,  and  she  was 
running  reversed  when  I  saw  this  car. 

Q.  When  you  saw  the  first  and  second  cars  in  the  way  3-011  have 
described,  you  were  reverstd  and  were  moving  comparatively  slowl}-, 
were  you?  A.  I  slowed  clown  considerably  ;  I  didn't  come  to  a  full 
slop. 

Q.  The  actions  of  the  first  car  that  you  have  described  were  before 
you  put  on  steam  and  ran  for  Forest  Hills?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  of  the  condition  of  the  third  car?  A.  I 
didn't  see  the  third  car  at  all.  The  first  car  came  in  such  a  way  that 
it  intervened  so  that  I  couldn't  see  the  cars,  being  on  the  right-hand 
side. 

<,>.  Did  you  see  anything  of  the  rails  being  torn  up?  A.  No,  not 
until  I  came  back  there  ;  then  I  saw  the  rails  were  out.  I  didn't  see 
anything  of  that  kind  — didn't  notice  it  at  the  time. 

Q.  If  there  were  any  automatic  brakes  on  the  cars,  would  the}'  be 
likely  to  be  the  new  cars  in  the  train?  A.  I  don't  know  about  that. 
1  don't  know  whether  the  new  cars  come  with  the  automatics  on  them 
or  whether  they  are  put  on  at  the  shops.     I  couldn't  say  as  to  that. 

Q.    (By  the   Chairman.)     Are   you  confident  that  you  saw  that 


APPENDIX.  313 

second  car?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  that  that  second  car  was  sliding 
right  on  its  bottom. 

Q.    Do  yon  remember  distinctly  seeing  it  so?     A.    Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Q.  Before  yon  went  down  to  Forest  Hills?  A.  Yes,  sir;  before  I 
went  down  to  Forest  Hills.    I  think  that  car  came  sliding  right  along. 

Mr.  Billings  (fireman) — recalled. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  know  how  much  steam  you  had 
on  that  morning  when  you  left  Roslindale?     A.    About  110  pounds. 

Q.    How  much  at  the  bridge?     A.    I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Q.  How  much  steam  did  you  intend  to  keep  up?  A.  As  much 
steam  as  I  could  get — 130  pounds. 

Q.  Could  you  get  130  pounds  on  that  engine?  A.  No,  sir;  I  had 
not  since  I  left  Dedham. 

Q.  It  was  increasing  all  the  time,  was  it,  from  the  time  you  left 
Dedham?     A.    No,  sir  ;  decreasing. 

Q.  What  did  you  start  from  Dedham  with?  A.  One  hundred  and 
thirty  pounds. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  much  steam  the  engineer  was  using  after 
you  left  Roslindale?     A.    No,  sir;  I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  throttle  was  wide  open  or  not?  A. 
No,  sir  ;  he  don't  very  often  pull  it  wide  open.  Once  in  a  great  while 
he  does. 

Q.    Well,  in  that  place  is  it  customary?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  wide?  A.  Oh,  three  or  four  notches,  or  two  or  three 
notches,  somewheres  along  there. 

Q.  What  do  you  know  about  the  action  of  the  brakes  that  morn- 
ing? A.  I  don't  remember  anything  about  the  brakes  that  particular 
morning. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  remark  about  their  not  working  prop- 
erly?    A.    No.  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  they  worked  when  you  left  Roslindale, 
whether  they  retarded  the  train  or  whether  you  had  any  sensation  of 
that  sort?     A.    No.  sir  ;  not  on  that  morning,  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Were  the  brakes  applied,  to  your  knowledge,  at  any  time 
between  leaving  Roslindale  and  the  time  of  the  accident?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  fast  do  you  think  you  were  going  when  you  crossed  the 
bridge?     A.    Twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour. 

Q.  Are  you  very  confident  you  were  not  going  faster  than  that? 
A.    That  is  as  near  as  I  can  judge. 

Q.  Wasn't  it  over  that  rather  than  under  it?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  don't 
think  it  was.  I  think  it  was  less,  if  anything  ;  less  than  fifteen  miles. 
We  were  not  going  near  so  fast  that  morning  as  we  generally  do. 


314  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.    Not  near  so  fast?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  How  fast  do  you  generally  go?  A.  I  think  twelve  miles  an 
hour  —  ten  miles  an  hour. 

Q.    What?     A.   About  Gfteen  miles  an  hour  any  other  morning. 

Q.  I  don't  understand.  A.  We  weren't  going  quite  as  fast  this 
morning  as  we  generally  do. 

Q.    On  the  morning  of  the  accident?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  speed  were  you  going  on  the  morning  of  the  acci- 
dent? A.  I  think  about  fifteen  miles  an  hour;  between  twelve  and 
fifteen. 

Q.  How  fast  do  you  generally  go?  A.  Ten  or  twelve  miles  an 
hour,  as  near  as  I  can  judge. 

Q.  I  don't  understand.  I  thought  you  said  3-011  were  not  going  so 
fast  the  morning  of  the  accident  as  3-011  generally  go?  A.  I  mean 
the  other  way.     I  am  turned  round  a  little  ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  Now,  what  do  3-011  mean?  A.  I  mean  we  weren't  going  quite 
as  fast  the  morning  of  the  accident.  Generally  mornings  we  would 
be  going  about  fifteen  miles  an  hour.  We  were  not  going  quite  as 
fast  that  morning,  because  we  didn't  have  quite  so  much  steam. 

Q.  Does  the  amount  of  steam  determine  how  fast  \'Ou  are  going? 
Doesn't  it  depend  upon  the  amount  of  steam  you  are  using?  A. 
Well,  no ;  I  shouldn't  think  it  would.  He  wasn't  going  as  fast  as  he 
could  have  gone  with  that  amount  of  steam.  If  he  was  a  mind  to  he 
could  have  gone  faster  a  good  deal. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  the  speed  is  determined  by  the  action  of  the  throttle, 
isn't  it,  how  wide  open  that  is  ?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  second  car  in  the  train  after  you  left  the  bridge? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  I  didn't  see  the  second  car. 

Q.  Did  3*ou  see  it  after  3-011  got  back  to  the  bridge  from  Forest 
Hills?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  3-011  remember  whether  there  were  an3T  trucks  under  it  then  ? 
A.   There  wasn't. 

Q.    Are  3rou  sure  of  that?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  cars  all  on  a  level  with  the  track?  A.  I  can't  say  as 
to  that. 

Q.  That  is,  was  the  end  of  either  one  of  the  cars  raised  up  or 
tipped  up  in  an3"  way?     A.    I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  the  cars  looked  ?  (Showing  photograph.)  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  notice  with  regard  to  that  second  car,  which 
looks  as  if  it  was  raised  up  at  the  rear  end?  Was  it  raised  up  so 
when  you  got  back?  A.  I  couldn't  tell  3-011.  One  car  is  naturally 
higher  than  the  other  one  an3-  wa3r,  because  it  has  a  monitor  top  and 
the  other  has  not. 


APPENDIX.  315 

Q.  The  third  car  is  lower  thau  the  second  car?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
would  be,  any  way. 

Q.  If  there  had  been  trucks  under  the  rear  of  the  second  car,  do 
you  feel  confident  that  you  would  have  seen  them?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Can  you  not  jump  off  of  your  engine  with 
safety  when  it  is  going  at  the  rate  of  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  an  hour? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  I  shouldn't  want  to. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  Don't  you  run  any  faster  than  fifteen 
miles  an  hour  at  any  time  after  leaving  Dcdham?     A.    Oh,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Couldn't  you  run  as  fast  down  that  hill  as  you  could  anywhere 
between  Dedham  and  that  place?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Aciiorn.)  Will  you  state  how  this  grade  affects  the 
speed  of  your  train?  That  is,  supposing  you  came  out  of  the  cut  at 
Roslindale  and  the  steam  was  shut  off  there,  would  the  momentum 
and  grade  increase  the  speed  of  the  train?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  would  be 
apt  to. 

Q.  Then  the  train  would  be  running  faster  at  Forest  Hills,  would 
run  down  that  grade  faster,  even  with  the  steam  shut  off,  than  it 
would  before  it  reached  the  bridge,  wouldn't  it?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom,  I  have  understood  at  the 
previous  hearings  that  all  those  cars  were  provided  with  straight  air 
and  not  automatic  brakes. 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.  There  were  undoubtedly  automatic  brakes  in 
that  train.     We  can  furnish  you  with  the  history  of  every  car. 

Mr.  Kinsley.  We  have  got  the  history  of  the  cars,  but  it  does 
not  state  that  fact. 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.  If  you  desire  to  know  that  fact  we  can  give 
it  to  you.  I  think  that  the  forward  car,  No.  52,  had  an  automatic 
brake  on  it. 

Mr.  Kinsley.       Is  Mr.  Richards  here? 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.      No,  he  is  not. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Can  }Tou  tell  positively? 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.  No,  I  cannot.  We  will  ascertain  how  the 
fact  is  and  put  it  in. 

The  Chairman.  Whether  they  were  automatic  or  straight  air, 
they  were  at  this  time  practically  only  straight  air  brakes? 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  what  they  are  obliged  to  do 
on  a  train  that  has  both  automatic  and  straight  air  brakes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  heard  that  snap,  I  understand  from 
your  evidence  given  the  other  day  ?     A.    I  did,  sir. 

James  Folsom  —  recalled. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Did  you   have  charge  of  removing  the 
wreck  on  the  embankment?     A.    I  did  not;  Mr.  Richards  did  that. 


316  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Do  you  know  about  what  trucks  were  placed  under  the  second 
car?  A.  The  trucks  of  the  first  car  were  placed  under  the  second 
car  to  take  it  to  the  shops. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  were  any  trucks  under  the  second 
car  after  the  accident?     A.    I  do  not ;  I  can't  say. 

Testimony  of  Prof.  George  F.  Swaix. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Your  residence?     A.    Boston. 

Q.  Your  occupation?  A.  I  am  associate  professor  of  civil  en- 
gineering at  the  Institute  of  Technology. 

Q.  How  long  have  yon  been  so?  A.  I  have  taught  at  the  Insti- 
tute of  Technology  for  five  years. 

Q.  And  been  associate  professor  for  how  long?  A.  For  one  year  ; 
assistant  professor  for  two  years  before  that. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  other  education  as  a  civil  engineer?  A. 
I  have  studied  civil  engineering  both  in  this  country  and  abroad.  I 
have  made  a  particular  study  of  bridges  in  that  time,  spending  con- 
siderable time  at  all  the  large  bridge  works  in  this  country  for  the 
purpose  of  studying  their  processes  of  manufacture  and  their  methods 
of  design.     I  have  had  some  experience  on  hydraulic  work  besides. 

Q.  What  was  your  education  in  Europe?  A.  I  made  a  particular 
study  of  bridges. 

Q.    At  what?     A.    At  the  Polytechnic  School  in  Berlin. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  practical  experience  in  the  construction  of 
bridges?  A.  The  time  I  have  spent  in  bridge  shops  on  my  own  ac- 
count, examining  their  methods  of  manufacture  and  their  methods 
of  design. 

Q.  How  much  has  that  been?  A.  I  make  it  a  point  to  spend  a 
certain  portion  of  every  summer  in  that  way,  perhaps  three  or  four 
weeks,  at  the  different  works. 

Q.  In  examining  bridges  that  have  already  been  constructed,  what 
have  you  done  in  that  line?  A.  Only  on  my  own  account.  I  always 
examine  any  important  bridge  that  comes  in  nry  way.  In  my  travels 
about  the  country  I  make  it  a  point  to  go  to  all  important  bridges  in 
process  of  erection,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  them. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  examined  the  Bussey  bridge,  so  called,  before 
the  accident?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  made  an  examination  of  the  wreck,  and  if  so  state 
fully  what  the  result  of  your  examination  has  been,  and  what  conclu- 
sion you  have  reached  in  regard  to  the  cause  of  the  accident? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  arrived  at  the  wreck  on  the  morning  of  the  accident, 
about  noon,  and  I  examined  it  quite  carefully,  and  I  found  what  I 
concluded  was  the  cause  of  the  accident.     I  think  it  was  caused  by 


APPENDIX.  317 

the  failure  of  those  hangers  at  the  hip-joint  of  the  west  truss,  —  the 
failure  of  those  hangers  and  the  post  under  them. 

Q.  Please  explain  the  position  in  which  you  found  them,  their  con- 
dition, and  all  the  circumstances  which  to  your  mind  tend  to  show- 
that  that  was  the  cause  of  the  accident,  and  also  what  the  course  of 
the  accident  was.  A.  I  noticed,  in  the  first  place,  that  those  hangers 
that  came  from  the  hip-joint  were  in  a  very  bad  condition,  one  being 
almost  rusted  through,  and  the  other  being  partially  cracked  ;  and  on 
examining  the  other  block  in  which  the  hangers  were  still  intact.  I 
noticed  that  they  were  arranged  very  eccentrically  on  the  pin,  and 
that  eccentricity  led  me  at  once  to  believe  that  that  was  the  cause  of 
the  accident ;  and  a  few  rapid  calculations  showed  that  that  eccen- 
tricity would  have  very  great  effect  in  increasing  the  strain  on  those 
hangers.  The  way  in  which  the  truss  fell  seemed  to  me  to  point  in 
the  same  direction  ;  and  subsequently  all  the  testimony  has  simply 
strengthened  my  conclusion. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  your  calculations  in  regard  to  the 
eccentricity  of  those  hangers?  A.  I  made  a  calculation  to  see  what 
they  would  bear. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  result  of  that  calculation?  A.  I  found  that 
the  two  hangers  which  were  not  broken,  the  ones  at  the  south  hip- 
joint  of  the  north  truss,  would  not  bear  probabl}'  more  than  25,000 
pounds  apiece,  one  of  them  perhaps  a  little  less.  It  is  impossible  to 
tell,  of  course,  with  exactness,  even  if  they  were  sound. 

Q.  And  what  ought  they  to  have  been  capable  of  sustaining  in  the 
position  in  which  they  were?  A.  I  have  made  a  calculation  of  the 
load  which  would  come  on  the  two  hangers  which  broke,  taking  the 
weights  of  the  engines  as  they  have  been  stated  in  the  testimony.  I 
found  that  the  load  which  would  come  on  that  joint  would  be  about 
47,000  pounds,  live  load,  and  perhaps  9,000  or  10,000,  dead,  making 
nearly  GO, 000  pounds  total  load  on  those  two  hangers.  Of  course,  at 
that  joint  the  post  will  bear  a  portion  of  the  load  and  the  hangers  the 
remainder. 

Q.  Which  post  do  you  mean?  A.  The  I  beam  which  was  directly 
under  the  hip  joint.  That  would  bear  a  portion  of  the  load,  and  the 
hangers  would  bear  the  rest. 

Q.  What  was  the  size  of  that  I  beam?  A.  It  was  a  five-inch  I 
beam,  one-quarter  inch  web,  two  and  three-quarters  inch  flange. 

Q.  They  were  capable  of  sustaining  25,000  pounds  apiece?  A.  If 
they  were  sound,  they  would  probably  sustain  from  20,000  to  25,000 
pounds  apiece. 

Q.    You  mean  that  is  the  utmost  limit?     A.    Yes,  sir.     A  less  load 
than  that  would  break  them,  if  applied  a  sufficient  number  of  times. 
Q.    Do  you  mean  by  that  a  dead  weight  or  a  live  weight?     A. 


318  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Well,  I  mean  that  if  a  certain  load  less  than  that  were  applied  a  cer- 
tain number  of  times.  Of  course,  there  would  alwa3Ts  be  a  certain 
portion  of  the  load  which  would  be  dead,  coming  from  the  truss.  The 
remainder  of  it  would  be  live  load,  coming  from  the  weight  of 
the  train.  The  sum  of  the  two  would  be  the  total  load  on  the 
hangers. 

Q.  Then,  what  is  the  conclusion  which  3-011  arrived  at  from  that? 
Would  the  bridge,  if  those  hangers  had  all  been  well  made,  have  been 
a  safe  bridge?     A.    No,  sir  ;  it  would  not. 

Q.  Is  it  a  bridge  that  you  would  have  passed  as  a  safe  bridge  when 
it  was  originally  made?     A.    No,  sir;  I  should  not. 

A.  How  long  would  you  have  supposed  that  such  a  bridge  as  that 
would  stand?  A.  Well,  that  would  be  a  ver}r  difficult  thing  to 
arrive  at,  because  it  depends  a  great  deal  upon  the  quality  of  the  iron, 
and  nobocby  could  predict  in  these  cases  just  how  man)-  repetitions  of 
a  certain  load  would  break  a  certain  piece  of  iron.  It  might  have 
lasted  ten,  fifteen  or  twenty  years.  I  couldn't  predict  with  exactness. 
It  depends  upon  the  number  of  trains  that  go  over  it  a  day. 

Q.  But  if  all  those  irons  were  only  strong  enough  to  sustain 
25,000  pounds  apiece,  and  the  load  that  j'ou  estimate  of  those  trains 
was  30,000  pounds  on  each  of  them,  how  could  they  stand  up  at  all? 
A.  The  post  underneath  them  would  support  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  load  which  came  on  that  point. 

Q.  Would  the  rest  of  the  bridge  help  them  out  also?  A.  Yes, 
sir ;  the  stiffness  of  the  floor  and  various  other  things  would  help  to 
a  small  extent,  not  very  much,  in  the  original  condition  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  At  the  time  when  this  bridge  was  built,  ten  years  ago,  would  it 
have  passed  a  scientific  examination?  A.  I  don't  think  it  would  ;  no, 
sir.  I  should  not  have  passed  it,  if  I  had  been  called  to  examine 
it. 

Q.  Would  it  have  been  considered  by  the  average  bridge  expert  of 
that  day  a  suitable  bridge?  A.  Not  if  he  had  correctly  understood 
the  importance  of  the  eccentricity  of  those  hangers. 

Q.  How  many  men  do  understand  the  bearing  of  that  eccentricity? 
A.    That  I  can't  tell  you,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  men  can  estimate  it?  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  how 
many  could,  but  it  is  not  a  very  difficult  problem  ;  it  is  quite  a  simple 
one  ;  it  is  just  like  a  hook. 

Q.  How  long  since  there  has  been  a  recognized  solution  of  that 
problem?     A.    From  fifty  to  a  hundred  years. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  In  bridge  building?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Iron 
bridges  have  not  been  built  as  long  as  that ;  but  the  Chairman  asked 
how  long  a  scientific  solution  of  the  problem  had  been  known. 

Q.   Very  true.     But  has  it  been  known  as  applied  to  bridge  build- 


APPENDIX.  319 

ing?     A.    Yes,  sir;  it  has  been  known  as  applied  to  bridge  building 
for  a  good  many  years  ;  I  cannot  tell  how  long. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  long  Lave  iron  bridges  been  used  by 
railroads,  or  come  into  fashion  in  place  of  the  old-fashioned  wooden 
bridges?  A.  They  were  used  by  railroads  when  railroads  were  first 
built,  in  the  twenties  of  this  century. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago  did  the  leading  bridge  building  companies  have 
any  engineer  in  their  employ,  as  a  rule,  who  knew  anything  about  the 
eccentricity  of  such  hangers,  and  about  the  bearing  which  such  eccen- 
tricity had  upon  the  strength  of  the  bridge?  A.  They  certainly 
should  have  had  ;  there  is  no  reason  wiry  they  should  not ;  they  ought 
to  have  had.  An  engineer  would  avoid  such  hangers,  as  a  rule,  and 
he  would  not  make  a  hanger  either  of  that  design  or  in  that  way, 
unless  he  was  forced  to  do  something  of  the  kind  by  the  construction 
of  the  rest  of  the  bridge  ;  and  that  could  be  avoided. 

Q.  Was  it  necessary  in  this  case  to  have  those  eccentric  hangers? 
A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  think  it  was  necessaiy.  It  was  necessar}'  with 
the  pins  directly  under  each  other ;  but  the  pins  need  not  have  been 
arranged  in  that  wa}' ;  the  floor  beams  might  have  been  supported  in 
a  different  way. 

Q.  What  do  you  suppose  led  to  the  hangers  being  eccentric? 
A.  Because  the  pin  in  the  chord  was  put  through  at  right  angles  to 
the  axis  of  the  bridge,  and  the  pin  in  the  floor  beam  was  put  through 
at  right  angles  to  the  axis  of  the  floor  beam,  which  made  the  two  pins 
at  right  angles  with  each  other,  and  in  order  to  get  the  two  hangers 
over  those  pins,  it  was  necessaiy  to  make  them  eccentric. 

Q.  How  could  it  have  been  avoided?  A.  It  could  have  been 
avoided  by  making  the  hanger  of  a  different  pattern,  or  not  support- 
ing the  floor  beam  on  a  pin,  —  supporting  it  on  a  plate  ;  in  various 
ways  it  could  have  been  avoided. 

Q.  Was  there  any  advantage  in  supporting  it  on  a  pin  that  would 
counterbalance  the  disadvantage  of  the  eccentric  hanger?  A.  I  don't 
see  any  ;  no,  sir ;  that  disadvantage  of  the  eccentric  hanger  is  a  very 
serious  one. 

Q.  What  do  you  consider  was  the  quality  of  the  workmanship  of 
those  hangers?     A.    I  do  not  consider  it  was  good. 

Q.  Well,  how  bad?  A.  Well,  that  is  what  is  called  a  loop  weld. 
That  hanger  was  made  at  both  ends  with  what  is  called  a  loop  weld. 
A  loop  weld  is  a  bad  thing  ;  it  ought  never  to  be  put  in  a  vital  part  of 
a  bridge,  because  the  pull  on  the  hanger  tends  to  open  the  weld 
directly.  A  hanger  in  that  position  ought  to  be  made  without  any 
weld  at  all  in  the  manufacture.  It  ought  not  to  have  been  made  with 
an  eye.  A  loop  weld  is  put  by  good  engineers  now  only  in  unim- 
portant parts  of  a  bridge,  such  as  wind  bracing  and  counter  rods. 


320  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Q.  Was  the  iron,  aside  from  the  welding,  suitable  for  such  hangers? 
A.  I  don't  think  the  iron  was  of  very  good  quality.  Still,  the  area 
of  those  hangers  was  such  that  if  the  hangers  had  not  been  eccentiic 
they  would  have  been  amply  strong. 

Q.  Was  the  workmanship  of  them  good  or  bad?  A.  I  don't  think 
the  welding  was  good  ;  but  still  the  very  large  strain  which  would 
come  on  them  would  naturally  tend  to  open  the  weld.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  make  a  weld  that  would  bold  in  those  places. 
As  I  said  before,  a  loop  weld  is  a  bad  thing,  especially  in  a  case  like 
that. 

Q.  You  examined  those  bangers  at  the  time,  did  you?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.    The  broken  ones?     A.    Yes,  sir;  and  the  sound  one. 
Q.   Did  you   examine   both  portions   of  the   fracture?     A.    Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  them?  A.  Out  there  at  the  wreck.  I 
examined  all  four  hangers,  in  fact. 

Q.  In  what  position  did  you  find  them  with  reference  to  the  train  ? 
A.  I  found  those  hangers  which  were  broken  on  the  east  side  of  the 
cars  which  were  lying  in  the  street,  and  near  the  abutment. 
Q.  Between  the  cars  and  the  abutment?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  In  this  hanger,  "  P,"  what  was  that  break  there  caused  by? 
A.  I  think  it  was  caused  by  the  weight  on  the  hanger,  and  that  would 
tend  to  break  it  on  this  bend. 

Q.    Was  that  strain  due  to  the  eccentricity  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    Have  you  any  idea  whether  that  is  a  new  or  an  old  break  ? 
A.    I  should  say  it  was  an  old  break. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  definitely  about  it?  A.  I  examined  it  there.  I 
should  think  a  large  portion  of  it  was  an  old  break  ;  some  of  it  is 
new,  evidently.  The  pull  on  that  hanger  would  naturally  tend  to 
open  that  weld  there.  I  think  it  has  been  gradually  pulled  open,  and 
gradually  tending  to  break  at  this  point,  just  as  the  other  hanger  which 
has  broken  has  finally  broken  off  at  this  point. 

Q.  Will  you  examine  these  breaks  on  '*  Y"  and  "YY,"  and  state 
what  portion  of  them  you  deem  to  be  new  and  what  old  breaks? 
A.  I  think  that  ("  Y  ")  is  an  old  break,  all  except  a  little  strip  along 
the  edge  nearest  the  eye. 

Q.  About  what  portion  of  the  whole  area  there  is  new  break? 
A.  Well,  I  should  think  not  more  than  from  one-fourth  to  one-fifth  ; 
1  can't  tell  exactly  ;  it  may  have  rusted  some  in  the  mean  time.  It 
has  all  rusted  ;  even  the  part  which  seems  to  have  been  broken  new 
seems  to  have  rusted  considerably. 

Q.  How  about  that  welding?  A.  The  welding  is  evidently  not 
perfect. 


APPENDIX.  32  L 

Q.  Now,  the  others, —  "X"  and  "  XX"?  A.  That  welding  is  not 
good. 

Q.  How  much  of  the  breaks  was  new  and  how  much  old?  A. 
That  is  almost  all  new  break,  on  both  sides  (referring  to  "XX"). 
There  is  a  small  portion  of  it  that  is  defective  iron.  I  cannot  tell 
exactly  whether  there  was  an  old  break  there  or  not ;  probably  there 
was  a  crack.     But  that  is  almost  all  new  break,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  that  break  in  the  place  where  you  would  suppose  it  would 
break  as  the  result  of  the  eccentricity  ?  A.  That  broke  through  the 
eye  ;  but  no  man  can  tell  where  an  eye  bar  will  break.  The  eye  of  a 
bar  should  be  made  as  strong  as  the  body  of  the  bar ;  if  it  is  not, 
yon  will  not  obtain  the  full  strength  of  the  bar.  It  has  broken  ex- 
actly as  I  should  suppose  it  would  in  breaking  through  the  eye.  In 
fact,  I  have  made  some  calculations  on  this  hanger,  and  I  should 
judge  that  it  would  commence  to  break  through  there,  according  to 
the  results  which  I  have  found. 

Q.  Were  those  breaks  simultaneous,  do  you  suppose?  A.  That  I 
cannot  tell  exactly  ;  but  as  near  as  I  can  make  out  from  the  appear- 
ance and  the  figures  that  I  made,  it  would  tend  to  break  right  here; 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  break  there  is  rather  more  fibrous,  per- 
haps, than  any  other  portion,  which  would  tend  to  show  that  it  rather 
started  there,  and  the  rest  went  off  more  suddeni}'.  It  is  extremely 
probable,  from  the  shape  of  that  eye,  that  it  would  commence  to 
break  in  that  way,  if  it  broke  through  the  eye,  as  it  did. 

Q.  Could  the  eccentricity  of  those  hangers  have  been  avoided,  as 
shown  in  that  diagram?  A.  Well,  these  pins  are  at  right  angles, 
exactty  as  they  are  in  the  bridge.  In  order  to  make  that  connection 
those  eyes  must  have  been  eccentric,  or  else  they  would  have  to  be 
made  slanting,  in  which  case  the  boring  of  this  pin  hole  at  the  top 
would  have  been  very  difficult  to  accomplish.  A  hole  is  never  bored 
obliquely  through  a  piece  in  that  way. 

Q.  You  cannot  avoid  eccentricity  in  that  method  of  construction? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Could  you  avoid  it  entirely  in  building  a  bridge  of  that  sort? 
A.  It  could  be  avoided  by  making  the  connection  with  the  floor  beam 
in  a  different  way. 

Q.  Is  there  any  objection  to  making  it  in  a  different  way?  A.  1 
should  say  there  was  great  advantage  in  making  it  in  a  different  way, 
and  avoiding  that  eccentricity. 

Q.  What  are  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  having  a  floor 
beam  hung,  instead  of  resting  on  the  truss?  A.  The  only  advantage 
that  I  can  see  would  be  that  it  might  be  desired  to  get  the  load  low. 
The  great  disadvantage  would  be  that  it  introduces  another  link  into 
the  structure.     Instead  of  resting  the   floor  directly   on    the   truss, 


322  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

where  it  is  finally  to  be  supported,  3-011  hang  it  and  introduce  another 
link  into  the  structure.  You  sec,  the  weight  of  the  train  rests  on  the 
stringers,  the  stringers  cany  it  to  the  floor  beams,  and  the  floor  beams 
cany  it  to  the  truss.  The  floor  beams  resting  directly  on  the  truss, 
the  transmission  is  direct,  without  any  intermediate  part.  In  this 
structure  the  hangers  must  be  inaccessible. 

(.,».    Was  that  an  element  of  objection  to  the  bridge?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

(,>.  How  serious  an  element  of  objection?  A.  Well,  if  the  hangers 
were  perfectly  made  in  the  first  place  and  amply  strong,  there  might 
not  be  any  great  disadvantage  in  making  them  inaccessible,  if  they 
are  well  painted  and  well  preserved,  covered  from  the  weather;  but 
it  is  always  better  to  make  every  part  accessible,  so  that  it  can  be  in- 
spected at  any  time.  I  think  that  is  the  rule  that  is  followed  now  by 
the  best  builders,  as  nearly  as  possible. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  it  ten  years  ago?  A.  That  princi- 
ple was  observed  ten  years  ago.  Bridges  were  not  built  then  as  they 
are  now,  and  parts  were  sometimes  made  inaccessible.  Still,  every 
style  of  truss  in  which  the  post  is  enclosed  renders  the  inside  of  the 
post  inaccessible.  I  don't  remember  to  have  seen  a  bridge  of  this 
kind  in  which  the  load  rested  on  the  top,  and  in  which  the  floor  beams 
were  suspended  from  the  chord. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Will  you  state  that  once  more?  A.  I 
don't  remember  of  ever  having  seen  a  deck  bridge  with  this  kind  of 
chord,  in  which  the  floor  beams  were  suspended  from  the  chord  instead 
of  resting  on  top  of  it. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago,  would  the  experts  of  those  days  have  passed 
that  bridge  with  hangers,  no  matter  how  well  constructed,  enclosed  in 
cast-iron  blocks,  so  that  they  cuuld  not  be  examined?  A.  Do  3011 
mean  symmetrical  hangers  or  U11S3  mmetrical? 

Q.  Could  you  tell  from  the  outside  whether  those  hangers  were 
symmetrical  or  not?  A.  No,  sir;  you  could  not  tell  from  the  out- 
side. If  any  one  looked  at  that  bridge,  he  would  be  led  to  suspect  that 
the  hangers  were  not  symmetrical.  By  observing  that  the  pins  were 
at  right  angles,  a  person  would  have  suspected  that  the  hangers  were 
not  symmetrical ;  and  if  he  could  have  found  out  that  there  were  two 
hangers  instead  of  one,  then  he  would  have  been  sure  that  they  must 
be  unsymmetrical. 

Q.  That  fact  could  have  been  detected,  could  it  not?  A.  By  look- 
ing at  the  end  of  the  floor  beam,  from  the  under  side,  it  could  prob- 
ably have  been  seen  that  there  were  two  hangers  ;  3-es,  sir. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago  would  such  a  bridge  as  that  have  been  passed  b}r 
what  was  considered  in  those  days  a  good  expert?  A.  You  mean 
with  the  hangers  as  they  were  there? 


APPENDIX.  323 

Q.  On  the  supposition  that  tliey  are  well  made.  A.  But  unsym- 
metrical  ? 

Q.  Yes,  but  unsyrametrical.  A.  Well,  sir,  I  can't  tell.  Some 
engineers  might  have  passed  it.  Some  might  have  observed  the  ec- 
centricity ;  some  might  not.  At  an)'  rate,  any  engineer  examining 
that  bridge  would  have  been  forced  to  say  that  there  were  certain  vital 
parts  which  he  could  not  see. 

Q.  And,  therefore,  what  would  have  been  his  report?  A.  Well,  I 
don't  think  he  would  have  made  any  definite  report  to  pass  the  bridge  ; 
he  couldn't  have  done  it,  unless  he  chose  to  stake  his  reputation  on  the 
parts  that  he  could  not  see. 

Q.  Would  you  to-day  pass  a  bridge  with  hangers  that  you  believed 
to  be  insufficient,  and  which  were  not  eccentric,  but  which  were  open 
to  the  objection  that  they  were  covered  up,  so  that  they  could  not  be 
examined  from  time  to  time?  A.  That  would  depend  something  on 
what  I  knew  of  the  bridge  and  its  buiiders.  In  many  cases  I  should, 
especially  if  I  could  see  the  original  plan  of  the  bridge,  and  make  sure 
that  the  hangers  were,  when  first  made,  amply  strong.  Still,  I  should 
state  in  my  report  that  those  hangers  could  not  be  examined. 

Q.  Well,  what  does  that  mean?  A.  Well,  it  would  simply  mean 
that  at  some  future  time,  when  the  bridge  is  worn  out,  those  might  1  e 
the  first  parts  to  go.  We  don't  know  just  how  long  an  iron  bridge  will 
last,  but  it  will  not  last  forever.  I  should  in  many  cases,  if  I  could 
see  the  original  drawings,  pass  a  bridge  which  had  hangers  concealed, 
if  I  knew  the  builders. 

Q.  Would  you  pass  any  bridge  which  had  hangers  concealed,  if 
they  were  eccentric,  like  this?     A.    Probably  not. 

Q.  Would  you  have  passed  this  bridge,  with  hangers  made  as  they 
were,  with  the  strength  which  they  show,  being  eccentric?  A.  I 
certainly  should  not. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)     Not  ten  years  ago?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  When  you  examined  the  wreck  itself,  did 
you  see  any  other  possible  cause  for  the  disaster?  A.  Well,  I  saw 
those  hangers,  and  they  were  quite  enough  to  satisfy  me.  I  did  not 
notice  any  other  cause  for  the  disaster  at  that  time. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  as  to  whether  those  hangers  were  the 
original  cause  of  the  disaster?  A.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  own 
mind,  —  no,  sir  ;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Have  you  attempted  to  account  for  the  engine  and  three  ens 
getting  over  the  bridge  on  to  the  northern  embankment,  on  the 
theory  that  those  hangers  were  the  original  cause  of  the  disaster? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  tried  to  account  for  a  good  many  things:  tried 
to  account  for  all  the  facts  which  have  been  brought  out  in  the  testi- 


324  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

mon}- ;  and  I  think  the}-  are  accounted  for  as  well  on  that  basis  as  on 
any  other. 

Q.  How  would  you  account  for  the  cars  getting  over  oil  the  north 
embankment?  A.  In  the  first  place,  those  hangers,  with  the  post 
under  them,  would  not  yield  at  once  ;  it  would  take  a  few  seconds  for 
them  to  go. 

Q.  The  hangers  themselves?  A.  Yes,  sir.  The}' would  not  go  in 
an  instant ;  they  would  go  very  quickly  ;  but  the  post  under  them 
would  go  in  a  longer  time. 

Q.  Would  they  go  with  a  snap?  A.  I  think  very  likely  the 
hangers  would  go  with  a  snap.  The  post  underneath  them  would 
take  a  longer  time  in  bending  and  going;  and  during  that  time  the 
iloor,  lateral  rods,  etc.,  the  rails  and  the  stringers,  would  help  hold  up 
the  train,  which,  if  it  was  going  at  the  rate  of  twenty  miles  an  hour, 
would  be  going  neaily  tnirty  feet  a  second  —  twenty-nine  feet  a 
second  ;  it  would  only  take  about  six  seconds  for  the  three  cars  to  get 
over. 

Q.  What  is  the  supporting  power  of  that  I  post?  A.  I  think  that 
I  post  would  bear  about  35,000  pounds ;  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
exactly,  of  course.  You  may  take  two  I  beams  of  exactly  the 
same  length  and  size,  and  one  will  bear  half  as  much  again  as  the 
other  ;  it  is  impossible  to  tell  exactly.  They  may  bear  from  30,000 
to  45,000  pounds;  as  near  as  I  can  make  out,  I  should  place  the 
strength  at  about  35,000  pounds. 

Q.  You  mean  before  it  would  begin  to  bend?  A.  The  ultimate 
strength  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  would  that  strength  be  assisted  by  the  floor  system? 
A.  Well,  that  is  pretty  difficult  to  tell.  The  wooden  stringer  on  top 
of  the  iron  stringers  was,  I  think,  continuous  over  the  joints  of  the 
iron  stringers,  and  would  therefore  help  hold  up  the  load  to  some 
extent,  together  with  the  rails.  I  can't  tell  how  much,  but  it  would 
add  something  to  the  strength  of  the  system. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  action  of  a  train  upon  the  floor  system,  after 
those  hangers  gave  way?  Have  you  figured  out  what  would  happen 
to  that  floor  system  there?  A.  I  don't  think  I  could  understand  all 
that  would  happen. 

Q.  The  hangers  giving  out,  where  would  the  floor  system  give  way? 
A.  It  would  first  commence  to  go  down  at  the  point  where  the  hang- 
ers were  attached.  That  would  throw  the  cars  first  to  that  side,  and 
would,  very  naturally,  I  think,  throw  them  up  against  the  upper  chord 
and  against  that  joint  block.  That  sinking  would  be  delayed  by  the 
gradual  yielding  of  that  post,  and  by  the  extra  support  afforded 
by  the  floor  system  itself. 

Q.    Have  you  seen  the  drawing  of  the  rails  that  ran  on  to   he  Bos- 


APPENDIX.  325 

ton  abutment?  (Showing  drawing  to  witness.)  Those  were  CO-foct 
rails,  terminating  on  the  abutment,  and  running  on  to  the  bridge  ;  and 
the  northerly  rail  was  found  in  the  street;  the  southerly  rail  was 
broken  at  this  point;  a  portion  of  it  was  found  on  the  abutment,  and 
this  portion  was  found  in  the  street,  was  it  not?  A.  I  did  not  notice 
those  rails  particularly. 

Q.  How  would  you  account  for  that?  A.  Well,  sir.  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  account,  I  think,  upon  any  theory,  for  the  exact  position  of 
each  piece  and  the  exact  occurrences  which  would  follow  that  acci- 
dent, any  more  than  if  you  set  a  conflagration  going  in  a  lot  of  frame 
houses,  you  could  tell  what  would  happen  ;  a  simple  gust  of  wind 
might  make  all  the  difference  in  the  world.  Five  miles  difference  in 
the  velocity  of  the  train  might  make  considerable  difference  in  the 
phenomena  when  this  bridge  was  broken.  It  seems  to  me  natural 
that  a  train  going  in  that  direction  should  have  bent  that  rail  up  in 
that  position,  and  this  one  in  the  same  way.  If  that  had  been  struck 
by  a  train  going  that  way,  it  would  have  been  bent  round  in  that 
position,  it  seems  to  me,  very  naturally. 

Q.  Then  it  was  not  the  weight  of  the  train  that  bent  them  in  that 
direction,  but  the  momentum  of  the  train?  A.  It  looks  as  if,  being 
bent  round  that  way,  it  must  have  been  the  momentum  of  the 
train.     That  should  have  bent  it  in  just  that  direction. 

Q.  These  rails  came  to  a  point  about  five  or  six  feet  on  theDedham 
side  of  the  bridge,  where  the  broken  hangers  were,  —  they  ended  about 
there.  If  ihose  hangers  were  the  cause  of  the  disaster,  what  would 
have  been  the  effect  upon  the  end  of  those  rails,  —  would  they  have 
stuck  up  or  would  they  have  gone  down?  A.  Well,  sir,  I  don't  think 
I  could  tell  exactly.  It  would  depend  upon  the  relative  strength,  to 
some  extent,  of  the  fastenings  and  of  the  spikes.  Probably  it  may 
have  stuck  up  at  that  end. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  supporting  power  of  a  rail  is,  if  you 
keep  it  in  position?  For  instance,  lay  a  rail  across  there,  and  support 
it  at  each  end,  can  you  tell  how  much  it  would  support?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  it  could  be  calculated.  It  would  depend  upon  the  size  of  the 
rail.     Rails  are  very  different  in  area  and  weight. 

Q.  Is  it  considerable?  A.  It  is  quite  considerable;  yes.  It 
would  depend,  of  course,  altogether  upon  the  span.  A  rail  of  fifty- 
two  feet  span  would  not  support  very  much  ;  that  is,  extending  from 
there  to  there. 

Q.  Still,  it  would  hi  quite  considerable?  A.  Yes  ;  it  would  lend  a 
good  deal  of  additional  support  to  that  I  post,  I  think  ;  although  it 
must  be  remembered  that  that  engine  got  over  that  point  in  a  veiy 
short  time,  and  that  after  that  there  was  simply  the  train  load,  which 
was  very  much  smaller.     Now,  I  think  that,  even   supposing  there 


326  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

were  no  supports  at  this  point  on  the  rails,  if  the  two  rails  extended 
from  the  centre  joint  in  that  truss  to  the  end  here,  those  two  rails, 
together  with  the  wooden  stringer  on  top  cf  the  iron  stringers,  would 
tend  very  considerably  to  support  the  train. 

Q.  The  condition  was  this  :  The  two  rails  stopped  there,  and  then 
they  went  sixty  feet  from  there  over  to  here.  A.  I  cannot  calculate 
exactly  how  much  that  would  support.  It  would  depend  upon  how  the 
ioint  was  fastened  and  how  much  that  fastening  could  hold.  I  think  iu 
any  case  the  rails  and  floor  would  support  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  train  load  itself,  after  the  engine  had  passed. 

Q.  After  it  began  to  go  down,  what  would  be  its  supporting  power 
after  that  I  post  began  to  bend?  A.  Then  the  floor  would  very  soon 
go,  the  rails  and  the  stringers. 

Q.  Don't  you  suppose  there  was  an  actual  settling  of  the  bridge 
when  the  engine  left  the  bridge?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  commenced  to  go, 
1  think,  when  the  engine  left  the  bridge. 

Q.  And  that  I  post  must  have  begun  to  bend  then?  A.  The  I 
post  began  to  bend,  and  perhaps  this  lower  chord  commenced  to  give 
a  little  ;  these  diagonals  commenced  to  yield  to  some  extent,  and  the 
whole  bridge  to  deform  slightly. 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  I  post  under  the  joint  block  in  which  were  the 
broken  hangers  out  there  that  day?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    What  was  its  condition?     A.   It  was  bent. 

Q.  How  much  bent?  A.  Oh,  bent  quite  considerably  ;  I  could  rot 
tell  exactly.  The  length  of  that  post  was  twelve  feet  and  six  inches 
between  the  castings.  I  should  think  between  the  two  ends,  as  it  was 
bent,  it  might  have  been  nine  feet;  that  is  simply  a  guess.  I  could 
make  a  sketch  to  show  better.  It  is  out  at  the  shops  now  ;  it  can  be 
seen. 

Q.    Considerably  bent5     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  identify  that  I  post?  How  are  you  sure  that  that 
I  post  was  not  under  some  other  hanger?  A.  From  the  position  in 
the  wreck  I  concluded  it  was  that  post.  I  did  not  pa}-  very  much 
attention  to  it  at  the  time.  I  noticed  that  post  there,  and  one  at  the 
other  end.  I  identified  it  the  other  day  at  the  shops.  I  am  sure  that 
that  I  post  is  bent.  I  identified  it,  and  examined  it  at  the  shops  three 
days  ago. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  it  the  morning  of  the  accident?  A.  I  can't 
remember  exactly;  it  was  somewhere  among  this  rubbish.  It  did 
not  make  a  great  impression  on  me  then.  When  I  first  got  out  there 
I  saw  an  I  post  which  was  bent  just  in  that  way.  I  did  not  know 
just  the  construction  of  the  bridge,  and  I  did  not  know  exactly  where 
it  came  from,  but  I  identified  it  the  other  day,  to  make  sure. 

Q.    What  do  you  find  there?  (Shewing  photograph.)     A.   That  is 


APPENDIX.  327 

the  floor  beam  which  rested  on  that  joint  block,  and  under  it  is  t lie 
lower  chord  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Do  you  see  any  I  post  there?  A.  No,  sir ;  there  is  one  I  post 
just  behind  that  joint  which  is  not  bent.  I  don't  think  I  noticed  that 
at  the  time. 

Q.  Do  you  see  the  I  post  in  question  in  that  picture?  A.  No, 
sir;  I  do  not  see  it.  I  noticed  those  more  particularly  the  Wednes- 
day after  the  accident,  when  I  went  out  there.  I  saw  there  were  two 
I  posts  that  were  bent. 

Q.  What  is  the  I  beam  which  you  see  there  which  is  not  bent? 
Where  did  that  come  from?  A.  It  is  exactly  the  same  thing  in 
length  and  size  as  this  I  beam  under  the  joint  block.  I  examined 
that  particularly  at  the  shops  the  other  day,  because  I  noticed  that 
Mr.  Hewins  said  that  the  I  beam  was  not  bent  when  he  first  saw  it. 
Now,  I  myself,  a  couple  of  days  after  the  accident,  when  I  went  out, 
mistook  another  one  for  the  I  beam  under  the  joint  block.  There  is 
another  I  beam  which  runs  across  from  the  lower  chord  to  the  abut- 
ment, which  is  exactly  the  same  length  and  size,  which  is  not  bent. 
It  is  at  the  shops  now,  and  can  be  seen. 

Q.  How  do  you  identify  that  as  being  a  horizontal  beam,  and  not 
a  perpendicular  post?  A.  You  can  identify  this  as  a  vertical  I 
beam,  because  it  is  connected  with  the  casting  at  the  top.  Now, 
it  is  connected  with  the  casting  on  top,  and  you  can  see  both  of  those 
vertical  I  beams  out  there. 

Q.  What  is  the  condition  of  the  horizontal  I  beam?  A.  The 
horizontal  I  beam  is  not  bent  at  all. 

Q.  Is  it  connected  with  anything?  A.  Not  connected  at  all  with 
anything  ;  it  simply  shows  two  holes  through  it,  where  it  was  trussed. 
It  is  the  horizontal  I  beam  which  went  across  from  the  lower  chord 
and  formed  part  of  the  wind  bracing.  There  were  horizontal  trusses, 
composed  of  short  bars  and  two  bars  running  through  the  I  beam, 
like  this. 

Q.  If  the  hangers  gave  way,  the  floor  beam  which  was  supported 
by  them  would  have  fallen,  the  northerly  end  first,  would  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  that  would  fall,  commencing  here. 

Q.  What  would  it  strike  in  its  downward  course?  A.  That  is 
pretty  hard  to  tell,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  expect  to  find  that  above  or  below  the  bottom  chord 
on  the  ground?  A.  That  would  depend  altogether  on  the  way  the 
rest  of  the  truss  came,  and  the  way  that  lower  chord  went.  This  end 
of  the  floor  beam  would  be  delayed  in  falling,  of  course,  as  I  have 
said,  by  the  gradual  yielding  of  that  vertical  I  beam,  and  by  the 
support  afforded  by  the  lateral  system  of  the  top  chord  ;  if  that  lower 


328  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

chord  wont  down  first  before  the   I  beam  got  down,  the  floor  beam 
would  fall  on  top  of  it. 

Q.  What  would  there  be  to  carry  down  the  bottom  chord  after  the 
hangers  gave  way;  what  would  be  the  strain  upon  it?  A.  Well,  I 
think  that,  after  the  hangers  gave  way,  the  train  was  thrown  to  the 
left,  against  the  upper  chord,  and  knocked  the  upper  chord  out  of 
shape  ;  and  of  course  the  lower  chord  went  right  down  then,  probably 
in  a  few  seconds. 

Q.  In  a  few  seconds  after  the  hangers  broke?  A.  Well,  the  whole 
thing  occurred  so  suddenly,  of  course,  you  cannot  specify  just  the 
time  it  would  take.  As  soon  as  the  upper  chord  went,  the  lower  chord 
would  go  almost  immediately. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  which  way  that  I  post  went 
over,  — whether  it  went  out  or  in?  A.  Yes,  sir;  bent  outwards, 
throwing  the  lower  chord  in. 

Q.  It  bent  outwards,  throwing  the  lower  chord  in?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
If  that  is  the  I  beam,  and  this  is  the  lower  chord,  if  that  I  beam  bent 
outward  it  would  naturally  tend  to  throw  the  lower  chord  in  rather 
than  out. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  sufficiently  strong  to  bend  that  lower  chord  and 
throw  it  in  at  all?  A.  I  think  as  soon  as  the  upper  chord  was  gone, 
the  lower  chord  would  be  rather  pliable,  and  a  very  small  thing  might 
determine  which  way  it  would  be  thrown.  There  would  be  considera- 
ble force  to  that  I  beam  ;  if  the  load  is  thirty-five  thousand  pounds,  as 
I  have  stated,  that  would  be  a  considerable  load,  and  it  would  tend  to 
throw  the  lower  chord  one  way  or  the  other  with  very  considerable 
force. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  made,  or  do  you  know  of  any  experiments  hav- 
ing been  made,  to  test  what  the  effect  of  a  Miller  platform  is  in  sup- 
porting a  car  over  a  chasm?     A.    No,  sir  ;  I  don't. 

Q.  Whether  it  is  so  strong  that  it  would  support  it  under  any  cir- 
cumstances? A.  I  don't  know  of  any  trial  that  has  been  made  on 
that  point. 

Q.  Do  you  see  anything  in  the  condition  of  the  wreck  of  the  cars 
and  of  the  bridge  that  seems  to  you  inconsistent  with  your  theory 
that  the  accident  was  caused  by  the  hangers  breaking?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
I  don't.  Of  course,  I  can't  explain  every  little  point,  as  I  have  said 
before  ;  nobody  could  explain  everything  on  any  hypothesis,.  There  is 
nothing  inconsistent  that  I  have  seen,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  with  the 
breaking  of  those  hangers. 

Q.  Have  you  made  a  study  of  the  question  of  the  floor  systems  of 
bridges?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  the  floor  system  of  this  bridge  ?  A .  Well, 
I  should  not  build  a  floor  system  like  that  exactly,  with  so  many  parts, 


APPENDIX.  329 

and  with  castings  at  all  the  joints,  although  it  was  a  very  common 
construction  ten  years  ago  to  use  cast-iron  a  great  deal  more  than  it 
is  now.  Engineers  prefer  now  to  connect  the  parts  directly  with  each 
other,  without  any  cast-iron  blocks. 

Q.  You  are  talking  about  the  truss?  A.  The  floor  was  also  sup- 
ported on  cast-iron  joint  blocks;  the  floor  beams  were  trussed,  and 
the  stringers  were  trussed,  and  both  the  floor  beams  and  stringers  had 
cast-iron  connections  at  the  joints. 

Q.  How  about  the  cast-iron  blocks  in  the  truss  itself,  —  were  the}' 
properly  made?  A.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  no  defect  in  them  that  I 
could  see. 

Q.  Were  the  "  lips"  (if  that  is  the  technical  name  of  them)  sufli- 
ciently  strong  and  deep?  A.  I  don't  think  that  they  would  have 
caused  any  trouble  themselves.  They  might  have  been  made  a  little 
deeper,  but  still  I  think  they  were  enough  to  hold  the  chord  in  place. 
I  d<m't  think  any  objection  could  bi  found  on  that  score. 

Q.  How  about  the  upper  pait  of  the  floor  system,  the  distance  of 
the  ties  apart,  etc.,  and  ihe  guard  rails  or  guard  timbers  of  this  bridge  ? 
Did  you  examine  those?  A.  I  don't  know  just  how  far  the  tics  were 
placed  apart.  Of  course  I  no' iced  at  the  time  of  the  wreck,  but  I 
have  forgotten  what  the  distance  was. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Mr.  George  F.  Folsom  has  made  a  state- 
ment that  the  ties  on  the  Bussey  bridge  all  extended  eighteen  inches 
outside  the  rail  on  the  east  side,  and  were  all  eighteen  inches  on  the 
centres.  The  ties  were  six  by  ten,  eight  inches  apart.  The  short 
ties  that  butted  against  the  truss  were  seven  feet  five  inches  long,  and 
the  ties  at  both  ends  of  the  bridge  were  ten  feet  long.  The  guard 
plank  outside  each  rail  was  ten  inches  wide  and  three  inches  thick, 
covering  the  bridge  and  abutments.  A.  Those  ties  were  placed  the 
usual  distance  apart.  Of  late  years  a  great  many  are  placed  closer. 
It  is  no  doubt  better  to  place  them  a  little  closer;  but  I  think  every 
biidge  ought  to  have  two  guard  rails  and  two  guard  timbers. 

Q.  Supposing  these  ties,  instead  of  being  eight  inches  apart,  were 
a  foot  or  a  foot  and  a  half  apart,  —  what  should  you  say  then  of  the 
floor  system?     A.    I  should  say  they  were  too  far  apart  entirely. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Would  that  be  considered  a  properly 
built  bridge  at  the  present  time  by  any  bridge  expert?  A.  No,  sir; 
I  think  not ;  the  ties  would  be  too  far  apart.  The  usual  spacii  g  of 
ties  apart  now  is  from  four  to  eight  inches  ;  a  great  many  space  them 
four  inches  apart,  and  some  even  closer. 

Q.  Is  eight  inches  the  outside  limit?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  there 
are  bridges  in  which  they  arc  spaced  further  apart. 

Q.  No;  I  mean  for  safety?  A.  1  should  not  want  to  space  them 
farther  than  that. 


330  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  Is  there  an}'  objection  to  bringing  them  as  close  as  four  inches? 
A.  No,  sir,  excepting  that  that  makes  the  floor  weigh  a  little  heavier  ; 
but  that  is  no  objection,  because  the  floor  system  would  be  designed 
to  bear  it. 

Q.  Is  it  not,  in  your  opinion,  a  source  of  safet}'  to  have  them  as  near 
as  four  inches?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  should  space  them  four  inches,  if  I 
were  designing  a  bridge,  with  guard  rails  and  guard  timbers. 

Q.  How  would  you  arrange  the  guard  rails  on  your  bridge?  A.  I 
should  put  the  guard  rails  about  seven  or  eight  inches  inside  the  rails 
of  the  track,  and  the  guard  timbers  about  twelve  to  fifteen  inches  out- 
side. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  size  of  the  guard  timber?  A.  That  varies 
a  great  deal  with  different  engineers.  I  should  put  in  about  six  by  eight. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  There  is  no  objection,  is  tliere,  to  a  bigger 
one?  A.  No,  sir;  no  objection.  Some  use  smaller.  I  should  put 
about  six  by  eight,  notched  down  over  each  tie. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Would  you  have  the  guard  on  the  inside 
straight,  or  bent  at  the  ends,  or  how?     A.    Bent  at  the  ends. 

Q.    And  how  far  bent?     A.    To  come  together. 

Q.  At  a  point  on  the  bridge,  or  beyond  the  bridge?  A.  On  the 
abutment  beyond  the  bridge. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  How  far  beyond  the  bridge?  A.  I  should 
commence  to  bend  them  together  a  few  feet  beyond  the  end  of  the 
bridge,  and  bend  them  up  so  that  they  would  come  together  perhaps 
ten  feet  or  twenty  feet  beyond  the  bridge. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  think  there  is  any  objection  to 
them  on  the  ground  that  obstacles  can  be  placed  between  those  and 
Hie  mils,  close  to  the  track?  A.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  some  objection. 
Obstacles  could  be  easily  put  in  between  those,  if  persons  were  ma- 
liciously inclined. 

Q.  How  serious  is  that  objection  to  your  mind?  A.  I  don't  think 
it  is  very  serious,  if  the  track  is  well  looked  after. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Do  you  think,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  at 
all  serious?  A.  I  have  never  heard  of  any  case  where  it  was  serious. 
It  is  an  objection  that  could  be  raised,  that  something  might  be  put 
in  there. 

Q.  But  it  is  a  quibble?  A.  Yes,  I  think  so;  I  don't  think  there 
is  anything  to  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  In  this  case  there  was,  as  I  understand, 
no  guard  rail  between  the  tracks,  and  outside  the  track  there  was  a 
guard  plank  ten  inches  wide  and  three  inches  thick,  within  a  few 
inches  of  the  rail.  What  should  you  think  of  the  efficacy  of  such  a 
guard  plank  as  that?  A.  I  should  think  that  it  was  not  protected  as 
it  ought  to  be. 


APPENDIX.  331 

Q.  What  would  be  the  objection  to  it?  Is  there  any  objection  to 
its  being  near  to  the  vail?  A.  No:  not  that  I  know  of.  I  should 
think  it  was  not  deep  enough,  in  the  first  place.  The  function  of  the 
guard  timber,  I  think,  is  principally  to  hold  the  tics  in  place,  to  keep 
the  ties  in  proper  position.  The  guard  rail  is  to  keep  the  train  in  its 
proper  position  on  the  bridge. 

().  Should  the  »uard  timber  be  notched?  A.  Notched  over  each 
tie  and  bolted  every  third  or  fourth  tie. 

Q.  Should  \ou  consider  a  bridge  as  suitable  for  use  on  a  railroad 
in  Massachusetts  in  which  the  openings  between  the  ties  were  more 
than  eight  inches,  and  which  had  no  guard  rail  in  between  the  tracks, 
and  outside  the  tracks  a  guard  plank  ten  inches  wide  and  three  inches 
thick,  placed  a  few  inches  from  the  track,  which  was  not  notched? 
A.  Well,  sir,  trains  might  run  over  a  bridge  like  that  for  a  hundred 
years  and  not  meet  with  any  accident,  but  I  should  not  consider  that 
it  was  protected  as  efficiently  as  it  ought  to  be  to  ensure  safety. 

Q.  If  a  tiain  were  derailed  on  that  bridge,  what  would  be  the 
chance  of  its  getting  across  the  bridge?  A.  I  do  not  think  it  would 
be  very  great,  sir. 

Q.  Could  it  get  across  the  bridge?  A.  That  would  depend  on 
how  long  a  bridge  it  was,  and  where  the  train  was  derailed.  I  do 
not  think  the  chances  would  be  very  great  of  its  getting  across;  it 
probably  would  not. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  The  plank  would  not  save  it,  would  it? 
A.    I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Stevens.)  If  the  bridge  were  100  feet  long,  you  think 
the  chances  would  be  against  a  derailed  train  getting  across?  A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  would  hold  the  ties?  How  about 
the  chances  of  the  tics  bunching  up  ?  A.  The  only  thing  which  would 
hold  them  would  be  the  spikes  in  the  rails. 

Q.  If  you  take  away  the  notches  from  the  plank,  the  further  you 
put  your  ties  apart  the  more  chance  there  will  be  that  they  will  bunch? 
A.  Certainly  ;  the  wheels  will  get  down  between  the  ties  further,  and 
that  would  tend  to  crowd  the  tics  all  up  together,  and  tear  the  track 
all  up. 

Q.  What  is  the  restdt  of  scientific  study  of  iron  bridges?  Is  it 
that  masonry,  stone  bridges,  stone  arches,  are  to  take  the  place  of 
iron  bridges  wherever  they  can  be  built?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  could  not 
say  that.  A  stone  arch  is  the  most  permanent  structure  that  can  he 
built,  but  it  costs  the  most,  and  it  is  simply  a  question  of  cost. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  the  result  of  investigations  in  regard  to  that? 
Is  it  in  the  end  cheaper?  A.  That  depends  upon  how  long  an  iron 
bridge  will  last,  and  that  we  do  not  know. 


332  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Have  you  got  no  data  yet  from  which  you  can  estimate  the  life 
of  an  iron  bridge?     A.    No,  sir;  there  is  no  positive  data  yet. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  are  aware  that  stone  arches  have  been 
washed  down  in  this  State?  A.  Yes,  sir;  certainly.  Stone  arches 
have  also  failed  by  giving  way.  But  if  properly  constructed  a  stone 
arch  is  the  mo-t  permanent  kind  of  a  b.idge,  and  requires  the  least 
expense  for  maintenance. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  In  your  opinion,  is  it  expedient  for  rail- 
roads to  put  in  stone  arches  wherever  the}"  can?  A.  I  think  it  is  a 
very  good  plan  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  in  the  interest  <>f  safely,  whether  it  is  in  the  interest  of 
economy  or  not?  A.  Y^es,  sir.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  an  iron 
biidgc  is  a  dangerous  thing,  not  at  all;  an  iron  bridge  can  be  built 
perfectly  safe  and  secure. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Have  you  ever  examined  or  had  brought 
to  your  notice  the  stone  arch  bridge  which  the  Providence  Railroad 
Company  has  built  within  two  or  three  years  down  at  Dodgeville? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  make  any  examination  into  the 
cause  of  the  bridge  at  Watcrbury  falling?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  of  the  bridge  at  Wells,  Me.?  A.  No,  sir.  This  is  the  first 
case  of  the  failure  of  a  bridge  which  has  happened  sufficiently  near 
for  me  to  examine  it  personally. 

Q.  How  about  the  testing  of  a  bridge?  What  is  the  best  method 
of  testing  a  bridge?  A.  The  best  method  of  making  sure  of  the 
safety  of  a  bridge  is  to  have  ii  built  by- responsible  parties  and  under 
good  supervision.  The  testing  of  a  bridge  after  it  is  built  does  not 
amount  to  very  much.  If  a  bridge  holds  up  a  train  of  cars,  it  does 
not  follow  it  will  hold  it  up  again. 

Q.  Is  the  test  of  a  bridge  wit'i  dead  weight  much  guarantee  that  it 
will  carry  a  train  going  at  fifty  miles  an  hour?  A.  No,  sir;  that 
does  not  follow  any  more  than  it  follows  that  if  a  bridge  holds  a  cer- 
tain train  once  it  will  hold  it  again.  The  shocks  and  vibrations  of  a 
train  passing  over  a  bridge  at  speed  very  greatly  increase  the  stress 
in  certain  parts  of  the  bridge  ;  and  in  testing  a  bridge,  in  any  event, 
it  should  be  tested  by  passing  a  train  over  it  at  a  high  rate  of  speed. 
But  still  those  tests  do  not  amount  to  very  much ;  they  do  not  show 
anything. 

Q.  (B3'  Mr.  Kinsley.)  What  does  show  something  as  to  an  iron 
bridge?  How  would  you  test  it?  A.  I  do  not  know  of  any  way  of 
testing  it  after  it  is  built,  and  making  sure  by  the  test  that  it  is  all 
right. 

Q.    So  you  would  test  it  in  building?     A.    I  would  make  sure  it  is 


APPENDIX.  333 

built  by  proper  parties,  that  the  plans  are  well  drawn,  and  that  the 
parts  are  property  proportioned  ;  tliat  is  the  onty  wav. 

Q.  Would  you  examine  the  parts  as  they  are  being  put  together  at 
the  furnaces?  A.  I  would  examine  the  pails  as  they  are  put  together 
in  the  bridge  builder's  shop.  It  is  not  the  custom  to  examine  all  the 
iron  for  a  certain  bridge,  unless  it  is  a  very  large  contract.  Large 
contracts  now,  especially  where  steel  is  used  for  bridges,  are  made  in 
such  a  wa}'  that  the  railroad  company,  or  the  contractor,  lias  an 
inspector  at  the  steel  works  ;  but  it  is  not  common  with  ordinary  iron 
bridges  to  supervise  the  manufacture  of  the  material.  That  is  ordered 
by  the  bridge  company  from  responsible  manufacturers,  and  the 
inspector  is  simply  at  the  bridge  shops  to  see  that  the  parts  are  well 
put  together,  and  to  see  whether  the  iron,  as  it  is  put  into  the  bridge 
there,  looks  all  right,  and  that  it  is  well  fastened,  and  that  the  rivets 
are  all  right,  that  the  sizes  are  what  are  called  for  in  the  drawings 
and  specifications,  and  that  the  workmanship  is  satisfactory. 

Q.  Could  these  devices  (the  hangers)  have  passed  the  eyes  of  a 
competent  inspector,  do  you  think,  ten  years  ago?  A.  Well,  sir,  as 
1  say,  an  engineer  might  very  largely  underrate  the  importance  of  that 
eccentricity,  unless  he  happened  to  have  looked  into  it,  and  unless  he 
understood  it  from  his  studies.  A  bridge  engineer  would  avoid  such 
an  eccentricity,  as  it  were  by  instinct. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  As  something  he  did  not  know  about? 
A.  As  something  to  be  avoided.  I  do  not  think  any  one  would  have 
liked  those  hangers. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  t<  n  years  ago  there 
were  a  large  number  of  bridges  built  in  various  parts  of  this  country 
that  had  the  element  of  eccentricity  largely  embraced  in  them?  A. 
I  do  not  know  of  any  case  where  hangers  have  been  used  of  that 
shaj.e.  The  principal  eccentricity  that  gets  into  a  bridge  is  where  the 
pins  go  through  the  different  pieces.  They  do  not  always  go  through 
the  centre  of  gravity,  and  in  that  case  there  is  an  eccentricity.  That 
is  well  understood  by  engineers,  and  the  specifications  require  it 
should  be  taken  account  of  in  the  calculations.  I  never  saw  a  hang  r 
eccentric  before. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Assume  an  iron  bridge  is  originally 
properly  constructed,  what  test  should  be  applied  to  it  subsequently*, 
or  what  examination  should  be  made?  A.  Well,  it  is  a  good  thing 
to  test  it  with  a  load  of  locomotives  to  satisfy  the  popular  mind,  but 
it  does  not  show  anything.  An  examination  of  the  bridge  should  be 
made  to  see  that  all  the  parts  are  sound,  that  the  nuts  have  not 
worked  loose,  and  that  even  thing  is  in  good  shape,  and  well  painted 
and  kept  in  repair. 


334  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  And  would  you  examine  for  cracks?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  examine  all 
the  parts. 

Q.  How  can  you  tell  about  crystallization?  A.  You  cannot  tell 
about  crystallization. 

Q.  Have  you  got  to  wait  until  the  bridge  breaks  down  before  you 
can  tell  about  that?  A.  It  is  an  open  question  as  to  crystallization. 
I  do  not  believe  in  crystallization  myself;  that  is,  I  do  not  believe 
that  originally  good  iron,  if  exposed  to  loads  under  the  elastic  limit, 
will  crystallize.  I  think  there  is  very  little  proof  that  iron  which  is 
originally  not  crystallized  does  ctwstallize  under  repeated  loads.  I  do 
not  know  of  any  satisfactory  proof  that  it  does  crystallize  under  re- 
peated loads  which  are  sufficiently  low. 

Q.  How  can  you  tell  whether  iron  is  crystallized  before  it  is  put 
into  a  bridge?  A.  Well,  the  only  thing  is  to  have  the  iron  well  made  ; 
have  it  made  by  a  good  maker.  You  cannot  tell;  you  cannot  look 
into  the  iron. 

Q.  You  may  have  crystallized  iron  put  into  any  bridge?  A.  You 
may  possibly  have  iron  which  is  partially  crystallized,  crystallized  to 
some  extent ;  but  if  jou  get  your  iron  of  good  parties,  there  is  no 
danger. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Cannot  you  get  iron  which  you  are  per- 
fectly sure  is  not  crystallized  in  its  manufacture?  A.  Yes,  sir;  you 
may  be  almost  perfectly  sure.  I  could  order  iron  to-day  from  various 
companies,  and  I  should  not  have  the  slightest  fear  that  any  portion 
of  it  was  ciystallized. 

Q.  And  if  you  had  any  doubt  about  it  you  could,  b}r  getting  the 
component  parts,  yourself  tell  whether  it  would  be  crystallized  in  its 
manufacture  or  not,  or  tend  toward  crystallization?  A.  Well,  sir, 
there  might  be  certain  phenomena  that  might  occur  in  the  making  of 
that  iron  which,  under  certain  abnormal  conditions,  might  make  it 
crystallize. 

Q.  But,  at  the  same  time,  3-011  can  give  an  order  to-da}'  to  certain 
iron  bridge  companies,  and  be  almost  positive,  as  positive  as  you  can 
be  of  anything,  that  there  will  be  no  crystallization,  can  you  not? 
A.    Certainly. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Now,  you  saj'  you  do  not  believe  crys- 
tallization takes  place,  unless  the  bridge  receives  blows  beyond  its 
elastic  limit?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  will  then,  sir;  I  do  not 
believe  it  will  then.  The  United  States  board  for  testing  materials 
found  only  one  case,  in  all  its  investigations,  in  which  iron  had 
apparently  become  crystallized  by  the  repeated  application  of  loads 
very  much  beyond  its  elastic  limit. 

Q.  How  much  allowance  do  you  make  in  building  a  bridge?  How 
many  times  the  actually  required  strength  do  you  require  for  the  iron? 


APPENDIX.  335 

A.  It  depends  on  the  portion  of  the  bridge  that  you  are  considering. 
Certain  portions  of  a  bridge  are  much  more  exposed  to  vibration, 
shock  and  jar  than  other  portions.  Now,  the  floor  of  a  bridge  is  the 
part  that  is  most  exposed  to  that.  And  the  loads,  besides,  on  the 
floor  are  liable  to  be  very  greatly  increased  beyond  what  they  would 
be  if  the  train  was  standing  still,  when  the  train  is  in  motion,  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  springs  on  the  locomotives  and  on  the 
cars  cause  them  to  sway  back  and  forth  and  throw  more  weight  on 
one  side  than  on  the  other,  and  the  connecting  rods  are  not  parallel 
but  are  at  right  angles,  and  the  wheels  are  not  perfectly  balanced,  so 
that  the  load  on  one  wheel  of  an  axle  may  be  much  greater  than  on 
the  other.  Now,  that  is  allowed  for  by  engineers  by  adding  a  certain 
percentage  to  the  calculated  stress  on  a  piece  to  allow  for  the  impact, 
or  the  eflect  of  this  vibration  and  shock  and  jar.  The  percentage 
varies  with  the  part  of  the  bridge  you  are  considering.  For  the  floor 
it  is  very  great,  a  large  percentage,  50  to  60  per  cent.  For  floor 
hangers  it  is  100  per  cent.,  by  the  best  engineers.  For  the  chords  of 
a  bridge  it  is  very  small,  15  or  20  per  cent. 

Q.  These  hangers,  then,  if  they  were  to  be  subjected  to  a  load  of 
30,000  pounds, — an  estimated  load  of  30,000  pounds, —  ought  to 
have  been  capable  of  carrying  how  much?  A.  How  do  you  get  at 
the  30,000,  sir? 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  the  load  upon  each  one  of  these  hangers  was 
30,000  pounds?     A.    In  the  actual  bridge? 

Q.  In  the  actual  train.  A.  Well,  let  me  see.  I  said  the  load  on 
that  joint  was  about  GO, 000  pounds,  —  57.000  or  58.000  pounds. 
Now,  if  the  vertical  post  b.;rc  35,000,  that  would  leave  20,000  or 
25,000  on  the  two  hangers. 

Q.    Twenty-five  thousand  on  the  two  hangers?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  have  allowed  in  building  this  bridge  for  the  support 
of  that  post,  or  would  you  have  built  the  bridge  so  that  the  hangers 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  support  twice  the  weight  they  would 
naturally  be  called  upon  to  support  without  the  post?  A.  I  should 
not  have  put  the  hangers  in  at  all. 

Q.  What  ought  to  have  been  the  estimate  for  those  hangers?  A. 
They  ought  to  have  been  estimated  for  the  actual  load  that  would 
come  on  that  joint,  plus  a  percentage,  which  would  vary  from  50  to 
100  per  cent.  It  is  100  per  cent,  now  with  the  best  engineers  ;  ten 
years  ago  they  did  not  allow  but  50. 

Q.  The  weight  on  the  joint  was  G0,000  pounds,  was  it  not?  A. 
Yes,  sir ;  about. 

Q.  Should  the  hangers  have  been  made  strong  enough  to  support 
20,000  pounds?  A.  They  would  at  the  present  time  ;  these  arc  made 
strong  enough  to  support  that  much.      Ten  years  ago  they  did  not 


336  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

add  quite  as  large  a  percentage,  and  sometimes  they  added  a  small 
percentage.  These  hangers,  if  the  load  had  been  symmetrical,  would 
have  come  within  the  limits  prescribed  in  the  specification. 

Q.  You  mean  if  the}'  had  not  been  eccentric?  A.  If  they  had  not 
been  eccentric.  The  specification  called  for  3,000  pounds  to  the  run- 
ning foot  of  that  bridge.  That  would  bring  about  78,000  pounds  on 
that  floor  beam,  of  which  about  three-quarters  would  go  to  this  truss, 
which  would  make  about  GO, 000  pounds  on  that  truss  of  live  load,  and 
addimr  in  the  dead  3-011  have  about  70,000  pounds.  The  area  of 
these  two  hangers,  without  adding  any  percentages,  —  the  area  of  these 
two  hangers  would  be  about  eight  square  inches,  which  would  bring 
it  between  8,000  and  9,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch,  if  they  were 
symmetrical. 

Q.  And  they  would  have  been  sufficient  without  making  any  extra 
allowance?  A.  Without  making  any  extra  allowance  ;  yes,  sir.  The 
specification,  as  I  read  it  in  the  paper,  did  not  call  for  any  extra 
allowance,  and  they  would  have  come  within  the  limit.  The  limit 
called  for  10,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch,  and  that  would  have 
brought  only  between  8,000  and  9,000. 

Q.  Were  those  specifications,  in  your  opinion,  suitable  specifications 
for  a  bridge?  A.  Well,  sir,  I  should  hardly  call  them  specifications. 
They  were  simply  the  offer  of  the  bridge  company  for  the  bridge. 
They  did  not  go  as  much  into  detail  as  specifications  do  now.  As  re- 
o-ards  the  load,  3,000  pounds  to  the  running  foot,  they  were  in  advance 
of  the  practice  ten  years  ago.  The  practice  ten  years  ago  was  not  to 
allowr  as  great  a  load  as  that  on  a  truss ;  and  they  showed  an  advance 
over  the  practice  ten  years  ago  in  allowing  3,000  pounds  to  the  run- 
ning foot.  And  as  regards  the  stress,  10,000  pounds  to  the  square 
inch,  they  were  all  right.  They  did  not  allow  anything  for  the  impact 
on  the  different  parts  of  the  truss.  That  is- a  thing  which  has  come 
up  within  the  last  ten  years. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Ktxslfa.)  They  did  not  know  very  much  about  it 
then,  did  they?  A.  They  did  not  practise  it  very  much  then;  they 
did  some,  but  not  to  the  extent  they  do  now. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  We  had  here  the  other  day  a  Mr.  Lock- 
wood,  who  explained  to  the  committee  about  the  hammer-blows  of  a 
locomotive  driving-wheel  ;  have  you  ever  made  any  examination  into 
that  question?  A.  Well,  sir,  that  is  a  question  which  it  is  pretty  hard 
to  examine  into  except  by  experiment,  I  think,  because  each  locomotive 
has  its  own  peculiarities,  just  as  each  person  has.  The  thing  has  been 
studied  to  some  extent  in  Eur  pe  ;  that  is,  the  difference  between  the 
loads  on  the  two  wheels  of  the  same  axle  has  been  studied  by  running 
locomotives  over  scales  and  finding  out  how  much  more  load  came  on 
one  side  than  on  the  other. 


APPENDIX.  337 

Q.  Is  it  anything  like  a  blow?  A.  Well,  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
blow,  you  might  say,  but  not  exactly  a  blow.  It  is  a  little  different; 
it  is  not  exactly  like  a  .sudden  blow  ;  it  simply  is  an  increase  of  the 
weight  on  one  side  beyond  what  it  is  on  the  other. 

Q.  With  reference  to  each  wheel,  is  it  not  simply  a  rapid  increase 
of  weight  on  the  tire  at  one  time,  and  a  rapid  decrease  at  another? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  How  about  the  sideway  motion  by  reason  of  the  wheels  on 
opposite  sides  not  running  together?  A.  That  causes,  of  course,  a 
side  vibration  —  a  lateral  vibration  —  of  the  engine. 

Q.  Has  that  been  tested?  A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  It  depends  to 
some  extent  on  the  way  the  wdieels  are  balanced.  By  properly  bal- 
ancing the  wheels  that  motion  may  be  reduced  considerably. 

Q.  What  is  the  theory  of  the  counterbalancing  of  an  engine  wheel? 
A.  It  is  based  on  the  centrifugal  force  of  a  revolving  motion,  and  the 
balancing  is  in  such  a  way  that  there  shall  be  no  tendency  for  the 
wheel  to  fly  in  any  one  direction  more  than  in  another. 

Q.  Is  the  counterbalance  only  for  that  purpose?  A.  1  think  that 
is  the  principle.  I  do  not  think  of  any  other  reason.  If  there  were 
no  counterbalance,  the  wheel  would  revolve  very  unequally,  be  apt 
to  leave  the  track,  sometimes  jumping  up  and  going  down,  and  the 
small  inequalities  of  the  track  might  cause  the  wheel  to  leave  the  rail. 

Q.  Is  it  simply  to  counterbalance  the  crank  and  crank  rod?  A. 
To  make  the  wdieel  revolve  as  if  it  were  a  uniformly  revolving  sym- 
metrical mass. 

Q.  And  does  it  exactly  counterbalance  the  weight  of  the  rod 
and  the  crank?  A.  The  different  works  have  different  ways  of 
counterbalancing ;  the}-  have  different  formulae  that  they  use  in 
different  methods.  Most  of  them  do  counterbalance  to  a  considerable 
extent,  but  none  perfectly,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  (By  Mx-.  Kinsley.)  Are  they  not  doing  awa}-  with  the  counter- 
balance in  some  locomotive  works?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  they  are; 
I  do  not  see  how  they  could. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  read  Mr.  Lock  wood's  testimony? 
A.    I  did  not  read  his  paper  thoroughly;  I  glanced  over  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  into  it  to  see  whether  his  c  inclusions  as  to  the 
force  of  the  blows  were  corrector  not?  A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think 
it  is  exactly  like  a  blow.  But  as  regards  that,  as  I  say.  engineers 
take  account  of  it  by  adding  a  certain  percentage  which  is  pretty 
well  definitely  fixed.  These  experiments  in  Europe  show  thai  in  cer- 
tain locomotives  the  pressure  on  one  wheel  might  lie  increased  10U 
per  cent,  above  what  it  would  be  if  it  were  uniformly  distributed  on 
the  two  wheels;  that  is,  one  wheel  might  be  entirely  loaded,  and  the 
other  wheel  entirely  unloaded,  under  certain  conditions. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT  OF  CIVIL  ENGIN*i£RU~ 


338  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  lateral  strain  of  an  engine  has  never  been  measured?  A. 
It  Ins  never  been  experimented  upon,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Is  that  an  element  which  is  provided  for  in  building  a  bridge? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  the  lateral  bracing  of  a  bridge  is  always  made  ampl\r 
strong,  or  should  be,  and  in  well-constructed  bridges  it  is. 

Q.  In  this  bridge  was  it  made  sufficiently  strong?  A.  I  think  so. 
I  have  not  made  any  calculations,  but  it  strikes  me  that  the  lateral 
bracing  is  quite  sufficient. 

Q.  Was  there  any  necessity  in  this  bridge  to  support  it  by  hangers 
rather  than  by  placing  the  floor  beams  on  top  of  the  truss?  A.  I  do 
not  know  any  reason  why  the  floor  beams  could  not  have  been  placed 
on  top. 

Q.  Would  the  height  of  the  truss  have  been  too  much  decreased 
thereby?  A.  Well,  it  would  have  been  decreased  if  the  track  was 
kept  at  the  same  level,  of  course. 

Q.  The  other  truss,  as  3-011  remember,  was  an  element  in  the 
matter.  In  order  to  save  the  other  truss,  was  it  necessary  to  build 
this  truss  in  this  way?  A  I  do  not  know  why  this  truss  could  not 
have  been  made  with  the  floor  beams  supported  on  top,  and  then  have 
had  them  supported  on  the  other  truss.  They  were  blocked  up  on 
the  other  truss  ;  castings  put  under  them  to  bring  them  to  the  level  at 
which  the}-  were. 

Q.  Could  they  have  been  blocked  up  still  further  with  safety?  A. 
I  do  not  see  why  not;  I  think  so.  But  the  height  of  this  truss  might 
have  been  diminished 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  diminished  without  injuring  its  strength? 
A.    Certainly. 

Q.  How  much?  A.  It  could  have  been  made  of  any  dimensions. 
The  dimensions  could  have  been  assumed  at  the  starting  point,  and 
the  truss  calculated  for  that  shape. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  truss;  have  you  examined  that?  A. 
Yes,  sir  ;  I  looked  into  it  some  at  the  scene  of  the  wreck. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  that  as  a  truss?  A.  It  was  not  a  truss 
that  was  built  as  a  truss  would  be  built  now. 

Q.  Was  it  a  suitable  truss  to  be  used  at  the  present  time?  A.  I 
should  not  consider  it  a  good  truss  ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  its  defects?  A.  Well,  in  the  first  place,  the  load 
w^s  carried  on  to  it  in  such  a  way  that  only  one  system  was  brought 
into  action. 

Q.  How  many  systems  were  there?  A.  Two;  and  the  connec- 
tions were  not  made  in  the  best  manner.  I  did  not  examine  it  very 
much  in  detail,  but  the  connections  were  not  made  as  they  should 
have  been  for  their  ample  strength. 

Q.    What  was  the  result  of  carrying  the  weight  only  upon  one  sys- 


APPENDIX.  339 

tcm  and  leaving  out  the  other?  A.  It  increase  1  the  stress  on  the 
diagonals  and  posts  of  that  system  and  left  very  little  on  the  other 
S3"  stem. 

Q.  Did  it  do  any  more  harm  than  it  would  have  done  to  have  used 
both  systems  at  a  double  pressure?  A.  Do  you  mean  to  have  loaded 
the  other  system  at  the  same  time? 

Q.  Yes;  with  equal  loads.  A.  No,  sir ;  if  the  other  system  had 
been  loaded  also,  there  would  have  been  more  load  on  the  truss,  and 
the  stresses  in  the  chords  would  have  been  greater.  That  truss  bore 
only  a  small  proportion  of  the  load  on  the  bridge. 

Q.  Was  it  possible  with  such  a  truss  as  the  Hewins  truss  to  carry 
floor  beams  across  to  the  old  truss,  the  Parker  truss,  so  as  to  use  both 
its  systems?  A.  Not  very  well,  unless  the  floor  beams  had  been 
raised  in  the  Hewins  truss  at  the  points  intermediate  between  the 
joints,  which  would  not  have  been  very  easy  to  do. 

Q.  Should  there  be  broken  joints  for  rails  on  bridges  or  not, — I 
mean  uneven  alternating  joints?  A.  I  do  not  think  that  makes  very 
much  difference. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  say  you  spend  some  of  your  time  in 
examining  different  bridge-building  works,  etc. ;  what  particular 
bridge  manufactories  have  you  examined  within  the  last  few  years? 
A.    1  have  examined  almost  all  the  large  ones  in  this  country. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  New  Jersey  Iron  and  Steel  Company's 
Works?     A.    At  Trenton  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  work  they  do?  A.  I  think  it  is 
only  within  a  few  years  they  have  been  building  bridges  to  any  large 
extent ;  thev  make  iron,  the  shapes  of  iron  required.  It  is  a  first-class 
company. 

Q.  They  take  orders  from  bridge  builders  or  anybody  else  for  cer- 
tain quantities  of  iron?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  you  consider  them  a  first-class  company?     A.   Yes,  sir. 
Q.    I  believe  the  company  is  the  same  in  its  ownership  as  the  Tren- 
ton Iron  Works,  is  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  the  works  are  at  Trenton. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  yourself  any  practical  experience  in  build- 
ing iron  bridges?  A.  I  have  never  been  connected  with  any  bridge 
works.  I  have  made  a  good  many  designs  for  bridges,  but  they  have 
not  been  built ;  they  have  been  designs  simply. 

Q.  You  never  have  furnished  any  designs  that  have  been  built? 
A.  No,  sir ;  the  bridges  are  built  by  the  bridge  companies,  and  I 
have  never  been  connected  with  any  bridge  company. 

Q.  Have  you  furnished  designs  for  bridge  companies  to  build? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  those  are  made  by  their  own  engineers. 

Q.    What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this :     have  you  ever  furnished  any 


340  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

designs  for  any  bridge  company  which  has  built  bridges  after  your 
designs  and  put  them  on  to  railroads?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Was  the  eastern  truss,  the  Parker  truss, 
sufficient,  in  your  opinion,  to  have  carried  a  second  track?  A.  I 
have  not  figured  it,  but  I  should  not  think  it  was. 

Q.  Would  it  have  been  better  to  have  placed  the  single  track  in  the 
middle  of  the  bridge,  if  you  were  going  to  have  011I3'  one  track?  A. 
I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  reason  why  that  should  be  done  if  the 
truss  in  itself  at  this  place  is  strong  enough  to  hold  the  proportion 
that  will  come  on  it.  I  cannot  say  whether,  in  this  particular  place, 
placing  the  track  in  the  middle  of  the  bridge  would  not  have  over- 
loaded the  Parker  truss  ;  I  have  not  figured  that  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  confident  that  the  Parker  truss  was  not  sufficient  to 
stand  the  extra  track?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  feel  confident ;  that  is 
simply  my  judgment.     I  should  have  to  figure  the  details. 

Q.  How  long  has  it  been  since  they  began  to  make  provision  in 
iron  bridges  against  the  injurious  effect  of  derailment?  A.  That  I 
cannot  tell  definitely.  I  suppose  there  are  a  good  many  roads  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  country  now,  a  good  many  bridges  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  now,  that  have  not  adequate  provision  against 
derailment;  but  I  think  fully*  fifteen  years  ago,  and  probably  longer 
ago,  the  leading  roads  made  adequate  provision,  although  they'  have 
ever  since  that  time  been  increasing  their  safety  in  that  direction  by 
making  their  floors  closer  and  stronger. 

Q.  Ten  years  ago  was  it  considered  an  element  of  danger  in  a 
bridge  of  this  sort  that  the  truss  was  above  the  floor  system,  —  stood 
above  the  rails?  A.  No,  sir;  not  that  I  know  of.  It  would,  per- 
haps, be  considered  objectionable,  in  case  there  were  not  adequate 
provision  against  derailment ;  for  in  that  case  a  train  off  the  track 
might  strike  against  the  upper  chord,  which  is  composed  of  these 
pieces  simply  abutting  against  the  joint  blocks,  and  would,  therefore, 
tend  to  throw  these  out.  It  certainly  would  make  it  easier  to  knock 
the  truss  down  in  case  a  train  did  get  off  the  track. 

Q.  Was  that  a  thing  which  a  good  bridge  builder  would  have 
guarded  against  ten  years  ago?  A.  I  think  that  would  have  been 
understood;  yes,  sir.  As  I  say,  I  have  never  seen  a  bridge  which 
was  built,  of  that  kind,  in  which  the  floor  was  hung  from  the  upper 
chord.     I  do  not  know  of  an}-. 

Q.    You  do  not  know  of  any  anywhere?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  that  was  built  at  that  time  which  has  since 
been  taken  down?     A.    No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  In  a  properly  constructed  bridge,  made  of  good  materials,  what 
are  the  dangers  to  be  guarded  against?     A.    Well,  sir,  I  should  sav 


APPENDIX.  341 

the  principal  clangor  was  that  the  train  should  not  be  kept  on  the 
track,  or  that  if  it  got  off  the  track  it  should  not  be  carried  across  the 
bridge  without  striking  it  and  knocking  it  down. 

Q.  I  mean  from  long  use  in  a  series  of  years,  how  is  the  bridge 
likely  to  give  out?  A.  We  have  not  had  experience  enough  to  be 
able  to  tell  how  a  bridge  will  really  give  out,  wear  out.  Bridges  have 
been  renewed,  and  bridges  have  fallen  down  by  reason  of  defects  in 
construction  ;  they  have  been  renewed,  and  they  have  been  taken 
clown  by  reason  of  the  increase  of  the  weight  of  the  rolling  stock 
beyond  that  for  which  they  were  designed.  But  I  do  not  know  of  any 
case  in  which  an  iron  bridge,  a  properly  constructed  bridge,  has 
actually  worn  out  in  use. 

Q.  What  are  the  most  general  faults  in  iron  bridge  building  as  seen 
in  this  Commonwealth?  A.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  know  as  I  could 
answer  such  a  general  question  as  that. 

Q.  Are  there  not  certain  things  which  you  tell  your  students  about 
as  being  general  faults,  and  faults  that  are  to  be  found  in  bridges  in 
this  vicinity?  A.  Yes,  sir;  there  are  a  good  many,  but  the}'  are  so 
many  and  so  various  that  I  really  do  not  know,  if  I  mentioned  any 
one,  that  I  could  point  to  the  particular  bridge  where  that  fault  was 
shown,  except  in  some  few  cases.  The  general  principle  could  belaid 
down  that  they  must  be  constructed  so  that  no  part  would  sustain 
more  than  the  proper  limit.  That  would  include  everything.  I  think, 
perhaps,  the  proper  stiffening  of  the  bridge,  the  proper  stiffening  of 
the  compression  pieces,  and  the  proper  arrangement  of  the  joints,  so 
that  the  pieces  that  abut  against  a  pin,  or  are  connected  by  a  pin,  are 
not  strained  at  that  point  beyond  the  proper  limit,  so  that  the  pins 
will  never  wear  loose.  That  is  an  important  point.  Still,  1  could 
not  lay  down  any  general  faults  that  are  often  found. 

Q.  Are  most  of  the  bridges  in  this  vicinity  satisfactory  bridges,  or 
are  they  unsatisfactory  bridges,  in  your  mind?  A.  So  far  as  I  have 
examined  them  I  do  not  remember  any  bridges  that  are  unsatisfactory. 
Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Did  you  examine  the  iron  work  of  this 
Hewins  truss?  A.  I  examined  the  portions  of  the  wreck  that  were 
there  on  the  ground. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  the  quality  of  the  tension  work  ?  A.  So  far  as 
could  be  seen  on  the  ground.  I  did  not  examine  any  of  the  breaks, 
the  places  where  they  had  been  broken  apart. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  the  general  quality  of  the  work  of  the  tension 
rods,  and  the  adjustments  and  fastenings?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  1  noticed 
that. 

Q.  Was  it  not  of  a  very  good  quality?  A.  Yc*,  sir;  it  seeme  I 
to  me  perfectly  satisfactory.     The  eyes  seemed  to  be  of  good  shape. 


342  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  Phoenix  Iron  Company,  from  which  I  understand  it  came, 
is  a  company  of  very  high  standing,  is  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  bridge  company,  I  think  it  is?  A.  Yes,  sir;  bridge  and 
iron,  both. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  quality  of  the  iron  of  which  the  compres- 
sion parts  of  the  bridge  were  composed,  and  the  workmanship?  A. 
I  examined  that  superficially  ;  yes,  sir.  I  did  not  make  a  careful 
examination  of  the  qualit}'  of  the  iron. 

Q.    Did  it  appear  to  be  good  work?     A.    Appeared  to  be  ;  j-es,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Trenton  Iron  Company,  from 
which  it  came,  is  also  a  concern  of  high  standing?  A.  Very  high, 
indeed. 

Q.  The  only  defect  in  this  bridge,  which  has  any  relation  to  this 
accident,  is  the  defective  design  of  these  hangers,  is  it  not?  A. 
If  lhat  includes  the  fact  that  they  were  inaccessible  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  that  if  they  had  not  been  defectively  designed, 
their  inaccessibility  would  not  have  been  a  danger;  it  was  only  a 
source  of  suspicion  ?     A.   It  would  have  been  a  source  of  suspicion. 

Q.  And  not  a  source  of  danger,  if  they  had  been  properly  de- 
signed?    A.    In  the  first  place,  no. 

Q.  Then  you  agree  that  the  eccentricity  of  those  hangers  is  the 
only  defect  in  that  bridge  which  has  any  casual  relation  to  this  dis- 
aster?    A.    So  far  as  I  could  see,  that  is  the  cause  of  the  disaster. 

Q.    And  that,  you  think,  is  a  sufficient  one?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  give  a  more  definite  idea  than  you  have  of  the  pro- 
portion which  the  strength  of  those  hangers,  as  actually  designed, 
bears  to  what  they  would  have  if  the  eccentricity  were  removed  ?  A. 
Those  hangers  have  about  eight  square  inches  in  their  area.  If  they 
were  made  of  good  iron,  and  were  properly  welded  so  that  they  would 
break  in  the  body  of  the  bar  (always  supposing  they  did  not  break 
through  the  eye,  but  that  the  eye  is  so  designed  that  they  will  break 
in  the  body  of  the  bar),  they  would  probably  have  borne  50,000 
pounds  to  the  square  inch,  which  would  be  400,000  pounds  for  the 
two.  As  actually  designed,  I  calculate  they  would  not  have  borne 
together,  if  sound,  more  than  50,000  pounds. 

Q.  Then  they  are  only  one-eighth  as  strong  as  the  same  amount  of 
iron  put  into  a  properly  designed  hanger  would  have  made  them? 
A.    About  that ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  only  important  difference  between  the  hanger  as  it 
should  be  and  the  hanger  as  it  was  is  the  eccentricity?  A.  And  the 
loop  weld.     I  should  not  put  a  loop  weld  on  a  hanger  like  that. 

Q.  Well,  if  the  loop  weld  were  so  as  to  bring  the  strain  on  the 
middle  bar,  there  would  be  that  difference  in  the  strength,  would 
there?     A.    Yes,  sir. 


APPENDIX.  343 

Q.  And  as  I  understand  you,  the  effect  of  this  eccentricity  is  to 
continually  work  open  the  weld,  or  start  it?  A.  The  effect  of  the 
eccentric  pull  is  to  open  the  weld  ;  that  is  the  tendency  of  it. 

Q.  Then  it  mny  very  well  be  that  when  these  bangers  were 
originally  put  in  the  welds  all  appeared  closed?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  effect  of  the  eccentricity  would  lie  to  cause  the  weigh! 
of  the  bridge  to  open  them  in  the  manner  in  which  they  are  shown  to 
be  open.     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  when  those  hangers  were  put 
in  they  exhibited  no  defects  then,  except  the  defect  of  design  which 
you  have  alluded  to?  A.  Yes,  sir.  But  I  would  emphasize  the  fact 
that  their  inacessibility  would,  in  my  mind,  constitute  a  considerable 
defect  in  the  structure,  so  far  as  my  own  judgment  goes. 

Q.  That  would  be  potential,  rather  than  actual;  that  would  be  a 
thing  to  give  you  anxiety?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  be  a  thing  you 
never  could  be  sure  about.  Anything  might  happen,  you  could  not 
tell  what.  You  could  never  see  the  hanger,  and  you  would  never  be 
sure  that  it  appeared  in  proper  condition. 

Q.  But  if  you  had  seen  the  hanger  before  it  wa*s  put  in,  and  had 
been  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  the  iron  and  with  the  design  of  the 
hanger,  the  fact  that  it  was  concealed  would  not  cause  you  serious 
anxiety  afterwards,  would  it?  A.  Not  very  serious, —  no  ;  at  any  rate, 
until  I  began  to  have  suspicion  that  the  bridg>  was  wearing  out. 

Q.  And  the  concealment  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  disaster,  ex- 
cepting that  it  prevented  the  gradual  wearing  of  this  hanger  from 
being  observed  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  If  those  hangers  had  been  in  sight, 
the  cracks,  the  opening  of  the  welds,  would  have  been  seen. 

Q.  But  if  they  had  been  of  proper  design  they  would  not  have  come 
to  pieces  where  they  were?  A.  No,  sir,  if  they  were  designed  without 
a  loop  weld. 

Q.  Now.  this  great  difference  between  the  strength  of  symmetrical 
and  unsymmetrical  hangers  is  rather  a  nice  point  of  engineering,  is  it 
not?     A.    Well,  sir,  I  should  not  call  it  an  obscure  point  at  all. 

Q.  I  did  not  say  obscure,  I  said  nice.  A.  As  far  as  any  point  in 
connection  with  calculating  a  bridge  is  nice,  that  is  nice.  It  is  :i  very 
simple  matter. 

Q.  Do  30U  think  it  was  so  obvious  that  any  respectable  bridge 
engineer,  ten  years  ago,  would  have  been  sure  to  see  it?  A.  En- 
gineers would  avoid  such  a  thing  as  that,  but  an  engineer  might  very 
easil}7  underrate  its  importance,  if  he  never  had  happened  to  think  of 
it  in  that  way.     He  ought  to  be  able  to  calculate  it,  though. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  a  familiar  fact  to  engineers  generally  that 
there  was  this  enormous  difference  between  a  direct  and  an  indirect 


344  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

pull  upon  the  hanger?     A.    I  think  most  of  them  would  appreciate 
that. 

Q.  It  is  very  seldom  indeed,  is  it  not,  that  hangers  are  made  with 
this  eccentricity?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  an  engineer  avoids  that.  He  feels 
instinctively  that  it  is  a  bad  thing. 

Q.  So  very  little  opportunity  has  been  given  to  know  the  difference 
between  indirect  and  direct  pulls?  A.  Well,  it  is  just  like  a  hook. 
In  designing  a  hook  in  machinery,  that  thing  has  to  be  taken  account 
of,  — the  very  same  thing  which  would  come  in  in  these  hangers. 

Q.  They  do  design  hooks  and  do  use  hooks  in  machinery,  do  they 
not,  which  have  an  indirect  pull?  A.  They  take  account  of  this  ; 
tiny  take  account  of  the  eccentricity. 

Q.  Then,  3011  think  that  if  the  design  required  an  eccentric  hanger, 
the  eccentricity  ought  to  have  been  taken  account  of,  ami  four  or  five 
times  as  much  material  put  in?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  Do  you  think  an  engineer  inspecting  that  bridge  a  month  ago 
would  have  detected  this  source  of  weakness,  and  have  condemned  it 
on  that  account?  A.  That  would  depend  upon  whether  he  happened 
to  suspect  that  the- hangers  were  unsymmetrical. 

Q.  Would  he  be  likely  to  suspect  it?  A.  I  should  think  so.  If 
I  had  been  examining  that  bridge,  the  ver}T  first  thing  which  would 
have  attracted  my  attention  would  have  been  that  the  pins  were  at 
right  angles  to  each  other,  and  I  should  at  once  have  commenced  to 
think  :  Here  are  these  hangers  ;  they  form  a  vital  part  of  the  bridge, 
and  it  is  very  important  I  should  know  how  these  are  arranged 
on  these  two  pins.  Here  are  the  pins  at  right  angles  to  each 
other,  and  I  should  at  once  suspect  there  might  be  an  eccentric- 
ity there.  At  any  rate,  I  should  want  to  know  what  the  shape  of 
those  hangers  was  and  how  they  were  made,  and  I  should  try  to  exam- 
ine more  in  detail. 

Q.  Do  you  think  your  mind  would  have  been  as  alive  to  it  a  month 
ago  as  it  is  now?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  not  think  3rou  are  an  exception  in  that  respect? 
Do  yon  think  most  engineers  would  have  thought  of  it  a  month  ago? 
A.  I  think  so.  The  very  first  thing  that  struck  me  when  I  saw  these 
hangers  was  their  eccentricit}-. 

Q.  When  you  saw  the  broken  hangers?  A.  I  did  not  notice  it  on 
the  broken  hangers,  because  I  only  saw  the  upper  part  and  the  lower 
part,  and  I  could  not  see  how  they  were  attached  on  the  pin  ;  and  I 
went  on  the  other  side  of  the  truss  to  the  joint  blocks  on  which  the 
sound  hangers  were,  —  the  hangers  that  did  not  break.  —  and  pointed 
it  out  to  some  of  my  students. 

(^.    Had  you  ever  seen  that  bridge  before?     A.    I  have  been  over 


APPENDIX.  345 

it,  and  I  think  I  did  once  go  under  it.  but  it  was  a  good  many  years 
ago,  and  I  haven't  any  recollection  of  it  at  all. 

Q.  It  would  not  surprise  you  to  hear  that  a  competent  engineer 
had  inspected  that  bridge  within  two  years  and  pronounced  it  safe, 
would  it?     A.    I  should  have  my  doubts  as  to  his  competency. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  have  had  a  month  ago?  Would  you 
have  had  doubts  a  month  ago  as  to  his  competency?  A.  Well,  not 
knowing  about  the  bridge  a  mouth  ago,  I  should  not  have  known 
anything  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  your  attention,  like  everybody's  else,  is 
more  wide  awake  to  the  danger  of  eccentric  hangers  than  it  was  a 
month  ago?  A.  Most  certainly,  but  a  month  ago  I  was  perfectly 
aware  of  the  effect  of  eccentricity,  and  I  know  it  is  taken  account  of 
in  various  specifications,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  a  bridge  engineer  should 
have  in  mind  all  the  time. 

Q.  I  have  no  doubt  3011  understood  it,  but  my  question  is  this: 
Whether  you  think  the  engineers  of  the  country  generally  were  as 
well  aware  of  and  as  wide  awake  to  the  dangers  of  eccentricity  in 
hangers  as  you  were?  A.  I  sent  a  sketch  of  these  hangers  on  the 
day  after  the  accident  — 

Q.  Please  answer  my  question,  which  applies  to  a  time  before  the 
accident.  A.  Well,  as  I  said  before,  I  think  an  engineer  might  very 
likely,  if  his  attention  had  never  been  called  to  it,  underrate  the  im- 
portance of  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  was  it  you  were  going  to  say? 
A.  I  received  an  inquiry  from  a  friend  of  mine,  who  is  an  engineer  at 
the  Trenton  Bridge  Works  now,  the  day  after  the  accident,  with 
regard  to  the  cause  of  it,  and  I  just  sent  him  a  little  sketch  of  those 
hangers.  I  did  not  say  anything  about  it ;  I  simply  said  that  was  the 
shape  of  the  hangers,  and  what  I  believed  caused  the  accident.  I  got 
a  letter  from  him  in  reply  at  once,  saying  that  was  sufficient  to 
account  for  it  in  his  own  mind. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Do  you  mean  he  is  an  engineer  of  the 
Trenton  Bridge  Works,  or  of  the  New  Jersey  Steel  &  Iron  Com- 
pany? A.  It  is  the  same  thing,  I  believe.  I  do  not  know  exactly 
which  concern  he  would  designate  himself  as  belonging  to. 

Mr.  Kinsley.  These  hangers  were  manufactured  by  the  New  Jer- 
sey Steel  &  Iron  Works,  which  are  called  by  the  public  very  often 
the  Trenton  Iron  Works.  The  same  parties  own  both  works  ;  it  is 
like  the  Ames  Company  of  North  Easton,  and  the  Ames  Company  of 
North  Bridgewater,  which  has  parts  of  its  shovels  manufactured  in 
each  place.  I  understand  that  these  hangers  were  made  by  the  New 
Jersey  Steel  &  Iron  Company. 

Mr.  Putnam.     It  is  the  company  which  Mr.  Swain  said  stood  high. 


346  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Yes. 

Mr.  Swain.     I  never  knew  there  was  more  than  one  company. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  In  giving  the  probable  resistance  of  that 
five-inch  I  beam  under  the  load,  after  the  hangers  were  broken,  yon 
stated  its  supporting  power,  I  think,  at  thirty-five  thousand  pounds? 
A.    About  that ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  its  theoretical  supporting  power  with  both  its  ends 
firmly  fixed  and  with  a  stationary  weight?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  that  weight  would  crush  it?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  the  slightest  vibration  of  either  of  its  ends,  of  course,  it 
would  go  long  before  that  weight,  would  it  not?  A.  I  do  not  think 
very  much.  That  is  its  strength  for  something  midway  between  flat 
ends  and  hinged  ends.  It  is  nearly  what  it  would  bear  according  to 
the  ordinary  formula  for  flat  ends.  There  is  a  difference  between  flat 
ends  and  fixed  ends,  —  a  little  difference. 

Q.  Is  not  that  taken  out  of  the  formula  for  fixed  end  support? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  flat  ends,  we  call  it;  that  is,  where  the  ends  simply 
bear  flat  against  two  parallel  plates.  There  is  a  little  difference 
between  flat  ends,  or  fixed  ends,  and  hinged  ends,  —  as  distinguished 
from  hinged  ends. 

Q.  If  the  bearings  were  tilting,  it  would  not  bear  anything  like 
such  a  weight  as  that?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    Even  stationary?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Still  less  if  the  load  was  moving?  A.  The  vibration  would 
undoubtedly  tend  to  make  it  go  at  something  less.  Still,  that  thirty- 
five  thousand  may  be  lowered.  As  I  said  before,  you  cannot  predict 
exactly  what  the  I  beams  will  bear.  These  may  have  borne  from 
thirty  to  thirty-five  thousand. 

Q.  Now,  afier  the  engine  had  g  me  over  there  was  nothing  like 
thirty-five  thousand  pounds  hanging  there  at  airy  time?     A..    No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  this  I  beam  had  been  capable  of  supporting  anything 
like  thirty-five  thousand  pounds,  the  whole  train  would  have  gone 
over  safety?     A.    The  engine  must  have  started  it. 

Q.  But  when  it  is  once  started  it  is  gone,  is  it  not?  A.  It  takes  a 
very  little  time  to  go. 

Q.  Once  out  of  perpendicular  it  has  no  strength  left,  has  it? 
A.  Some  records  of  tests  of  the  compression  pieces  show  they  will 
bear  a  maximum  load  for  two  minutes  before  they  go,  and  then  they 
go  without  any  addition  to  the  load. 

Q.  Before  it  is  bent,  but  not  after  it  is  bent?  A.  It  bends  gradu- 
ally, and  after  it  gets  to  a  certain  limit  it  goes. 

Q.  If  the  engine  bent  it,  its  resisting  power,  after  it  was  once  bent, 
was  substantially  gone,  was  it  not?  A.  Yes;  it  would  go  at  very 
little. 


APPENDIX.  347 

Q.  After  the  engine  had  bent  it,  the  cars  would  carry  it  down  very 
quickly,  would  they  not?  A.  They  would  cany  it  down  very  quickly 
if  there  was  nothing  else  to  support  the  track. 

Q.  You  have  mentioned  nothing  else  to  support  the  track,  except- 
ing the  track  stringer.  A.  The  track  stringer  and  the  rails  and  the 
lateral  braces,  which  would  naturally  tend  to  support  the  track  to 
some  extent.  And  then  the  ties  project  beyond  the  end  posts,  and 
as  the  track  stringer  went  it  would  take  hold  of  the  end  posts  and 
help  to  support. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  construction  of  these  track  stringers? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  all  our  examination  thus  far  it  has  been  assumed  by  every- 
body that  these  track  stringers  simply  abutted  against  each  other,  and 
were  independent  of  each  other  ;  is  that  your  assumption?  A.  That 
is  the  fact  with  regard  to  the  iron  part  of  the  track  stringer,  but  not 
with  regard  to  the  wooden  part. 

Q.  You  say  it  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  the  iron  part?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  these  iron  track  stringers, 
instead  of  abutting  against  each  other,  were  separated  at  the  ends  by 
a  small  block  of  cast  iron.     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  they  were. 

Q.  And  that  into  that  small  block  of  cast  iron  was  riveted  the  ten- 
sion bar  of  each  stringer;  you  understand  that  to  be  the  construction? 
A.    The  pin  took  the  tension  bar  of  each  stringer. 

Q.  So  that  the  two  track  stringers  adjoining  each  other  were  linked 
together,  were  they  not,  by  a  pin  going  through  their  tension  bars 
and  through  a  block  of  cast  iron  which  separated  them?  A.  I  have 
forgotten  whether  that  is  the  case  with  regard  to  that  block  ;  I  do  not 
remember  whether  the  pin  went  through  the  block.  Is  that  so?  Is  it 
a  fact  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  ask  you  whether  you  have  observed  it.  You  have 
been  studying  that  track  system  ;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Swain.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  some  sketches  here  which  I  think  will 
show  it.  (Witness  referred  to  his  sketches.)  Yes,  sir,  that  is  so ;  the 
pin  went  through  the  casting. 

Q.  Then  the  effect  of  that  would  be  that  the  track  stringers,  instead 
of  simply  abutting  against  each  other,  so  that  when  the  floor  beam 
was  taken  away  from  under  them  they  would  fall,  were  linked 
together,  so  that  when  the  floor  beam  was  taken  away  from  under 
them  they  would  simply  sag,  would  they  not?  A.  Well,  they  would 
come  apart ;  they  would  tend  to  come  apart  there  and  break  the  con- 
tinuous wooden  stringer  that  went  on  top  of  the  iron. 

Q.  Would  they  have  anything  like  the  same  tendency  to  part, 
linked  together  in  that  way  and  that  linking  extending  through  the 


348  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

whole  bridge,  that  they  would  have  if  they  simply  abutted  against 
each  other  and  abutted  against  the  adjoining  stringers?  A.  Yes, 
sir ;  they  would  have  almost  the  same,  independent  of  that  upper 
wooden  stringer  that  went  across  on  top  of  the  iron.  It  would  be 
almost  as  easy  for  it  to  go  apart  as  if  it  simply  abutted,  because  there 
is  no  lower  connection  between  them,  no  lower  chord. 

Q.  Looking  at  this  drawing,  which  represents  on  the  left  the  short 
truss  extending  from  the  abutment  to  the  upright  end  post;  then  the 
•26-foot  truss  extending  from  the  upright  end  post  to  the  angle  block  ; 
and  then  the  26-foot  truss  extending  from  the  angle  block  to  the  next 
joint  in  the  horizontal  member  of  the  truss,  those  trusses  being  three 
of  the  track  stringer;  assume  the  track  stringers  extending  across 
the  bridge  are  linked  together  in  the  same  way  ;  and  assume,  further, 
if  you  please,  that  the  end  of  the  track  stringer  on  the  abutment  is 
bolted  down  to  it,  and  that  at  the  point  where  the  track  stringers  rest 
upon  the  floor  beam  they  are  bolted  through  it,  do  you  not  think 
that  there  would  be  a  good  deal  more  to  hold  up  the  ends  of  those  two 
track  stringers  at  the  point  where  they  meet  on  the  floor  beam  than  if 
all  these  track  stringers  were  simply  abutting  against  one  another 
without  being  linked  together?  A.  Very  little,  unless  there  is  a 
piece  in  there  (A,  B). 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Though  it  would  drop,  would  it  not  hold 
together?  A.  It  would. not  drop,  perhaps,  on  to  the  ground,  unless 
it  pulled  this  off. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  It  would  tend  to  drop,  but  how  far  would 
it  drop?  A.  Probably  it  would  break  apart,  or  else  pull  this  end  off, 
or  else  this  here. 

Q.  It  would  not  drop  of  its  own  weight,  would  it,  if  there  were  no 
train?  A.  If  there  were  no  train  there,  that  would  not  stand,  except 
so  far  as  this  upper  chord,  possibly,  would  hold  the  weight.  It  would 
not  stand  there  unless  there  were  wooden  track  stringers  on  top  of  it. 
It  would  sag  ;  if  it  were  held  firmly  at  both  ends,  of  course  it  could 
not  go  all  the  way  down  to  the  ground,  but  it  would  go  down. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  far  would  it  sag  and  what  would  be 
its  strength  as  a  continuous  chain?  How  strong  would  that  joint  be? 
A.  Well,  it  would  sag  until  the  whole  thing  got  out  of  shape  and 
pulled  these  upper  chords.  It  could  not  sag  very  far  without  pulling 
these  two  stringers  apart  from  the  casting.  If  the  two  ends  are  fixed 
it  could  not  sag  very  far  without  pulling  the  two  stringers  apart  from 
the  casting.  Then  the  upper  chords  would  be  disconnected,  and  the 
whole  thing  would  go  clown.  The  upper  chords,  that  is,  the  iron 
parts  of  the  stringers,  would  be  disconnected  from  the  casting  and  the 
rest  would  go,  and  it  would  sag  just  as  it  would  if  it  were  a  continu- 
ous chain,  of  which  the  lower  chord  was  the  length.     But  before  it 


APPENDIX.  349 

did  that  it  would  not  be  held  at  one  end,  so  it  could  do  that  ;  it  would 
pull  off  from  the  other  floor  beam  at  the  middle  joint  of  the  bridge. 

Q.  Would  it  pull  out  from  the  ends,  or  would  it,  break  in  the  mid- 
dle first?  A.  I  sliould  say  the  iron  I  beam  forming  the  upper  part, 
the  upper  chord  of  the  track  stringer,  would  come  apart  in  the  middle 
as  soon  as  it  sagged  down  ;  and  the  block  against  which  they  abutted 
in  the  middle  would  be  left  free,  so  that  the  stringers  would  all  go  to 
pieces. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Potnam.)  What  should  free  the  block  ?  A.  If  those 
two  stringers  are  held  at  the  two  ends  and  they  are  going  to  sag,  the 
length  between  those  two  ends  measured  along  the  upper  chord 
must  be  increased,  if  it  goe*  out  of  a  straight  line,  must  it  not? 

Mr.  Putnam.     Yes. 

Mr.  Swain.  This  would  pull  the  upper  chord  of  the  stringers  apart 
from  the  block,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Putnam.  If  3-011  ask  me  the  question,  I  should  saj-  it  would 
press  the  upper  edges  of  those  stringers  into  the  block,  and  pull  the 
lower  edges  away  from  it. 

Mr.  Swain.  Yes  ;  but  it  would  very  soon  pull  the  upper  edges  out 
if  it  deflected  very  much. 

Q.  That  is,  after  a  certain  amount  of  deflection  they  would  come 
out?  A.  They  would  all  come  out,  and  the  two  I  beams  which  form 
the  upper  part  of  the  stringer  would  be  disconnected  from  the  rest  of 
the  stringer. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  3-011  whether  it  would  not  take  a  very  considerable 
weight  to  compress  those  so  far  as  to  squeeze  out  that  block,  the  other 
two  ends  remaining  (ixed?  A.  It  would  certainty  take  some  weight, 
I  could  not  tell  how  much. 

Q.  Would  not  the  fact  that  the  floor  beam  was  bolted  up  through 
the  track  stringer,  so  that  the  upper  side  of  the  floor  beam  had  a  ten- 
denc3*  to  keep  that  block  in  place,  prevent  to  some  extent  the  going 
to  pieces  of  the  stringers?  A.  Well,  if  the  floor  beam  was  perfectly 
free  to  go  down,  I  do  not  think  that  would  have  much  effect. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  am  assuming  that  the  floor  beam  is  bolted  to  the 
track  stringer  with  the  upper  side  of  the  floor  beam  under  the  block. 

Mr.  Swain.  Under  certain  conditions  the  weight  of  the  floor  beam 
would  be  simply  a  part  of  the  weight  which  is  tending  to  break  these 
stringers. 

Q.  Would  it  not  have  a  tendency  to  keep  the  block  in  place? 
A.  No;  it  would  be  simply  a  portion  of  the  weight  which  is  tending 
to  pull  that  middle  point  down. 

(.1-  It  would  be  a  mere  load,  then,  and  no  help.  Now,  is  it  your 
judgment,  Mr.  Swain,  that  this  construction  of  the  track  stringers  did 
not  help  at  all  to  get  those  cars  over,  as  compared  with  the  construe- 


350  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

tion  which  we  have  been  supposing  all  the  time,  of  track  stringers 
entirely  independent  of  each  other?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  did  help  some  ; 
I  have  no  doubt  it  helped  some.  But  what  helped  more  was  the  con- 
tinuous wooden  stringer  on  the  top  of  your  iron. 

Q.  You  think  that  helped  more?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  that  helped 
more . 

Q  That  track  stringer  on  top  would  help  more  by  keeping  this 
joint  from  separating  than  any  other  wa}r,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  it  would  act,  as  it  were,  as  a  beam. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  that  track  stringer  was  in  itself  a  continuous 
beam,  do  you?  A.  These  track  stringers  were  not  broken  —  I  mean 
the  wooden  portions  —  at  the  points  where  the  iron  ones  were. 

Q.  They  were  not  scarfed  together  or  made  into  a  continuous  beam 
in  any  way?  A.  No,  sir;  but  they  were  bolted  through  to  the  iron 
portions  of  the  track  stringer,  and  therefore  helped  to  bind  the  two 
together. 

Q.  They  were  of  no  service  at  all,  excepting  so  far  as  they  were 
over  joints  in  the  iron?  A.  No,  sir  ;  they  simply  served  to  splice  the 
iron. 

Q.  It  simpby  served  to  splice  this  very  joint,  then?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
that  is  it. 

Q.  Then,  the  wooden  track  stringer  was  of  no  service,  except  so 
far  as  a  portion  of  it  may  have  been  over  this  joint?  A.  It  served, 
by  being  over  that  joint,  to  aid  the  track  stringer,  to  keep  it  from 
falling. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  Swain,  that  the  fact  that  these  track 
stringers  were  linked  together  in  the  way  they  were  had  more  to  do 
with  the  slow  falling  of  the  bridge  floor  than  the  presence  of  that  little 
I  beam  had?  A.  Well,  sir,  I  really  could  not  make  any  definite 
statement  as  to  that.  They  all  had  their  effect.  Just  how  much, 
whether  one-half  was  due  to  one  and  one-half  to  the  other,  or  three- 
quarters  to  one  and  one-quarter  to  the  other,  I  am  sure  I  cannot  sa}\ 
They  all  added,  and  also,  as  I  said  before,  the  fact  that  the  ties  pro- 
jected over  the  end  post  and  would  catch  on  the  end  post. 

Q.  (By  the  Chaikm.vn.)  What  did  you  mean  by  that?  I  did  not 
understand  it.  A.  These  ties  are  projected  over  the  end  post.  As 
the  floor  beam  goes,  these  would  also  go,  and  these  would  come  down 
and  catch  on  the  end  post. 

Q.  Were  these  ties  bolted  down?  A.  Yes,  sir;  the}'  were  bolted 
down. 

Q.  Describe  what  scar  you  found  on  the  joint  block.  A.  I  noticed 
that  the  lower  portion  of  the  joint  block,  from  the  holes  where  the 
wind  braces  go  through,  was  broken  off  on  the  inside,  which  would 
tend  to  show  that  a  load  had  come  down  on  those  wind  braces  and 


APPENDIX.  351 

broken  off  the  easting  before  it  broke  the  wind  braces.  Perhaps  it 
did  not  break  the  wind  braces  at  all.  I  also  found  a  scar  on  top  of 
the  joint  block,  that  has  been  referred  to  in  the  testimony. 

Q.  What  was  that  due  to?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  it  would  be 
due  to  one  of  the  cars  being  thrown  sideways,  as  the  floor  wont  down 
at  that  point,  and  scraping  against  the  chord  and  hitting-tl.e  jo-int 
block.  Or,  possibly,  an  axle  may  have  struck  it ;  I  cannot  tell.  One 
of  the  pieces  of  the  upper  chord  is  scraped  very  much,  near  one  end, 
as  though  some  iron  had  been  scraping  along  it,  as  would  naturally 
be  expected. 

Q.  When  these  stringers  went  down,  do  you  suppose  they  parted 
at  the  middle,  or  did  they  hold  togel her  there  and  pull  the  ends  apart? 
A.  I  should  think  they  parted  in  the  middle;  and  1  noticed  that 
those  that  are  out  at  the  shop  still  have  this  wooden  stringer  over  the 
top,  and  that  would  naturally  be  broken  about  here,  as  it  was. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  saw  the  broken 
piece,  the  wooden  stringer?  A.  I  did  not  notice  that  the  first  day 
I  was  out  there  ;  but  one  day  I  went  out  there,  and  under  —  I  think 
it  was  —  the  sixth  car  or  the  seventh  car  was  a  stringer  which  I  took 
to  be  the  stringer  which  had  rested  on  this  joint  bbck,  and  that  had 
the  wooden  stringer  on  top  broken  off  a  couple  of  feet  from  the  end. 
And  all  the  stringers  which  are  out  at  the  shop  show  the  wooden 
stringers  broken  oil"  at  the  end  ;  all  that  have  the  wooden  stringer  on 
them  at  all  show  the  wooden  stringer  broken  off  very  near  the  end  of 
the  iron  stringer. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  about  building  a  bridge  as  much 
askew  as  this  one  was?  Is  there  any  inherent  defect  in  such  a  bridge? 
A.  No,  sir.  It  is  a  little  more  difficult,  a  little  more  costly,  to  build 
a  skew  bridge  than  it  is  a  straight  bridge.  The  connections  are  more 
complicated,  and  the  bracing  has  to  be  made  a  little  different;  but  it 
is  just  as  possible  to  make  a  perfectly  secure  skew  bridge  as  a  perfectly 
secure  straight  bridge. 

Q.  So  far  as  this  bridge  was  a  skew  bridge,  was  it  properly  built 
for  a  skew  bridge?  A.  I  should  think  so;  yes,  sir.  I  could  not  tell 
exactly  how  it  was  fixed  to  the  abutments,  or  exactly  how  the  diagonal 
bracing  went,  but  I  should  judge  it  was  perfectly  satisfactory  in  that 
respect. 

<,>.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  spoke  of  a  speed  of,  I  think,  thirty 
feet  a  second  ;  in  giving  your  speed  did  you  make  allowance  for  the 
stoppage  of  the  second  car  and  telescoping  of  the  train  which  occurred 
just  at  the  end  of  the  bridge?  A.  No,  sir.  I  simply  made  the 
statemeut  that  a  speed  of  twenty  miles  an  hour  would  be  thirty  feet  a 
second. 

C^.    Did  you  not  assume  that  was  the  speed  at  which  those  three 


352  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

cars  went  over?  A.  I  think  I  simply  made  the  statement  that  a 
speed  of  twenty  miles  an  hour,  which  would  be  thirty  feet  a  second, 
would  cany  three  cars  over  in  six  seconds,  or  something  like  that. 

(,).  Then  I  ask  you  if  you  made  allowance  for  the  fact  that  the 
second  car  was  stopped  somewhere  near  this  end  of  the  bridge,  and 
the  third  car  was  telescoped  into  it,  and  for  the  retardation  caused  by 
that  circumstance?  A.  I  was  not  making  allowance  for  anything, 
sir;  I  was  simply  making  the  statement  that  twenty  miles  an  hour 
would  cany  the  cars  over  in  that  space  of  time. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  mean  to  give  it  as  your  opinion  that  they 
were  carried  over  in  that  space  of  time?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hewins.)  You  referred  to  the  fact  that  there  are 
fome  marks  upon  the  horizontal  member  abutting  against  the  joint 
block,  showing  that  something  had,  perhaps,  rubbed  against  it,  or 
rolled  against  it,  before  striking  the  casting?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw 
those. 

Q.  If  I  understood  you  correctly,  you  meant  to  say  that  those 
marks  were  on  the  inner  side  of  the  horizontal  member?  A.  I  think 
they  were  ;  yes,  sir.  I  think  they  were  on  the  inner  side  of  the  top 
chord  nearest  the  joint  block. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  those  marks  were  on  the  top  side  instead  of  on 
the  inner  side,  how  would  you  account  for  the  marks  being  there?  A. 
Well,  I  meant  the  top  inner  side.  Was  not  the  top  of  the  inner  chord 
one  of  those  I  beams  ? 

Mr.  Hewins.     Yes. 

Mr.  Swain.     Well,  then,  I  meant  the  top  inner  side. 

Q.  Then  whatever  struck  that  casting  could  not  have  struck  it  from 
the  side,  but  hit  it  endwise  ;  that  is,  longitudinally  with. the  truss?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  action  of  iron  under  strain,  where  it 
is  tested  to  rupture?     A.    To  some  extent. 

Q.  Large  bars  or  small  bars?  A.  I  have  not  had  very  much  ex- 
perience with  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  an  eye-bar  broken,  with  one  end  upon  a  pin, 
as  it  would  be  in  a  bridge?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  ever  saw  an 
eye-bar  broken. 

Q.  Then  you  could  not  say  what  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  pin  ? 
A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know7  that  loop  eyes,  as  I  think  you  have  called  them, 
have  been  used  in  the  past  to  a  considerable  extent  by  bridge 
builders?  A.  I  never  happen  to  have  seen  a  loop  eye  used  for  a 
hanger.  I  have  seen  a  great  many  loop  eyes  used  for  wind  braces, 
and  they  are  used  now. 


APPENDIX.  353 

Q.  I  mean  for  main  tension  bars  on  a  bridge?  A.  No,  sir;  I 
never  saw  a  main  tension  bar  with  a  loop  eye. 

Q.  Then  3*011  never  saw  one  of  those  broken  for  a  test?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  quality  of  iron  from  the  appearance  of  its  frac- 
ture, without  knowing  anything  about  how  it  was  broken?     A.    No. 

Q.  You  would  not  undertake  to  judge?  No,  sir;  except  you 
might  be  able  to  tell  there  was  bad  iron,  you  might  not  be  able  to  tell. 
You  might  be  able  to  tell  in  some  cases,  you  might  see  flaws,  you 
might  see  defects. 

Q.    I  am  speaking  of  the  quality  of  the  iron.     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  a  fact,  is  it  not,  that  the  appearance  of  the  fracture  is  very 
much  modified  by  the  manner  in  which  the  iron  is  broken?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  cast  iron  for  compression  members  lias 
gradually  been  displaced  by  cast  iron  for  the  joint  blocks,  and  they  in 
turn  have  been  displaced  in  bridge  structures  by  continuous  members 
of  wrought  iron?  A.  Because  engineers  have  generally  come  to  feel 
distrust  in  cast  iron  on  account  of  its  being  much  more  easily  broken 
by  shocks,  blows  and  jars,  and  being  more  liable  to  inherent  defects. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  these  changes  have  been  brought  about,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  at  least,  by  the  fact  that  they  are  cheaper  in  cost? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  certainly.  I  do  not  know  just  how  much  difference  in 
cost  there  would  be  between  a  cast-iron  column  twenty  feet  long  and 
a  wrought-iron  column.     I  have  not  made  the  comparison. 

Q.    Do  you  know  it  is  cheaper?     A.    I  think  so. 

Q.    Very  materially?     A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  explain,  if  you  can,  what  your  theory  is  as  to 
what  may  have  struck  that  casting  and  how  it  got  there?  A.  Well, 
it  simply  seems  to  me  that  the  end  of  that  floor  beam  goiug  would 
naturally  throw  the  train  off  on  that  side.  Some  of  the  cars  would  be 
derailed  on  that  side,  I  should  think,  and  would  naturally  lean  over 
against  the  bridge  and  scrape  along. 

Q.  Whatever  did  it  was  on  top  of  the  chord,  was  it  not?  A.  It 
may  have  been  canted  over  to  one  side.  Those  cars  were  tipped  over, 
and  you  cannot  tell  just  what  happened. 

Q.  With  the  wheels  on  the  track?  A.  If  the  floor  beam  went 
down  in  this  position,  the  cars  were  in  that  inclination  even  supposing 
they  were  on  the  track.  They  would  be  inclined,  and  they  might  easily 
scrape  along  the  top  ;  this  is  not  on  the  very  top,  it  is  on  the  top 
inside  corner. 

Q.  The  top  of  the  chord  was  a  sort  of  gutter,  was  it  not  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  I  think  so. 

Q.    And  was  it  not  inside  of  that  gutter  that  you  saw  these  marks? 


354  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

A.  Well,  I  thought  it  was  on  the  outside.  I  did  not  notice  these 
marks  at  the  time  of  the  disaster;  I  simply  noticed  them  in  the  yard 
day  before  }'estcrday,  and  I  concluded  from  the  way  the  paint  was 
that  that  was  on  the  top  inside. 

Q.  (Sketch  shown  witness.)  Assuming  that  to  be  a  section  of  the 
chord,  will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  indicate  by  the  letter  "  a"  where 
these  marks  were?  A.  I  simply  noticed  the  chord  in  the  shop  day 
before  yesterday,  and  I  noticed  on  one  corner  those  marks ;  and 
casually  looking  at  it,  —  I  did  not  look  to  see  exactly  where  it  was, 
because  I  did  not  think  it  to  be  of  so  very  much  importance,  —  I 
took  it  to  be  there.  It  may  possibly  have  been  on  one  of  those 
others. 

Q.  Assuming  that  3*011  are  in  error,  and  that  b  c  is  the  vertical 
through  the  centre  of  the  chord,  and  that  the  marks  on  the  upper 
chord  extend  from  d  to  e,  a  being  toward  the  track,  how  would  3-011 
account  for  them?     A.    Well,  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  train  could  possibly  get  there  and  do  it  by 
yourtheor3T?  A.  I  could  not  tell  how  that  train  would  be  twisted 
about,  or  how  that  chord  piece  would  be  twisted  about,  in  its  various 
endeavors  to  get  down.  The  journals  were  some  distance  above  the 
chord,  and  I  think  it  might  possibby  be  that  the  journal  m'ght  have 
scraped  on  the  inside  above  d,  but  I  am  not  positive  about  that.  That 
is  one  of  the  things  I  cannot  sa3T  about. 

Q.  You  were  asked  some  questions  about  whether  a  lower  main 
brace  could  not  have  been  put  in  and  the  floor  beams  rested  upon  the 
upper  chord  instead  of  being  hung  underneath?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  have  produced  a  greater  deflection  in  the  truss 
under  a  given  load,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes  ;  it  gencralby  would  with 
a  proper  proportion  of  the  pieces. 

Q.  And  on  a  sharp  skew-  like  this,  that  would  have  made  more 
of  a  rolling  motion  in  crossing  the  bridge  by  the  locomotive?  A. 
Yes  ;  but  the  difference,  I  think,  would  have  been  very  small. 

Q.  That  would  have  been  its  tendency?  A.  Yes;  but  it  would 
be  very  small ;  I  think  a  difference  of  a  foot  or  two. 

Q.  Was  the  truss  upon  the  eastern  side  of  the  bridge,  in  your 
opinion,  overloaded  by  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  the  load  was 
put  upon  it?  A.  I  really  cannot  say  about  that.  I  have  not  made 
any  figures  with  regard  to  that  truss  at  all. 

Mr.  IIewins.  Perhaps  there  is  no  objection  to  my  stating,  at  this 
time,  that  when  this  bridge  was  built  it  was  understood  that  when  the 
bridge  should  be  double  tracked,  a  new  truss  was  to  be  put  in  place 
of  the  one  on  the  eastern  side. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  think  it  was  so  stated  b3"  Mr.  George  Folsom  in 
his  testimony. 


APPENDIX.  355 

Q.  Ts  your  estimated  reduction  of  the  strength  of  these  hangers  a 
pure  calculation,  or  the  result  of  actual  experience  in  testing?  A.  It 
is  a  result  of  calculation.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  banger  having 
been  made  like  that,  much  less  any  having  been  tested. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Placed,  as  these  hangers  were,  in  this 
cast-iron  block,  was  there  anybody,  except  the  persons  who  saw  them 
originally  put  in,  who  could  form  any  estimate  of  their  strength?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  if  a  bridge  is  built  in  such  a  manner  as  this  was,  is  it 
necessary  to  rel}-  upon  the  good  judgment  of  the  builder  or  the  expert 
who  had  charge  of  it,  —  the  persons  who  had  charge  of  its  original  con- 
struction? A.  Yes,  sir;  or  on  the  person  who  is  superintending  it 
for  the  parties  who  are  having  it  built. 

Q.  The  persons  who  have  charge  of  its  original  construction?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  can  an}'  person  who  examines  that  bridge  thereafter,  form 
any  certain,  correct  opinion  in  regard  to  its  strength  ?  A.  Not  from 
an  examination  of  the  bridge  alone.  If  he  could  see  the  plans,  and 
if  the  plans  would  show  just  how  those  were  arranged,  then  he  could 
have  calculated  it. 

Q.  But  he  could  not  tell  whether  the}-  were  good  iron?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  He  would  have  to  rely  for  that  upon  the  reputation  of  the  works 
where  they  were  made,  or  the  testimony  of  the  person  who  examined 
them  before  they  were  put  in?     A.    That  is  it. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)     I  would  like  to  ask  whether  the  figures. 
3'ou  have  given  us  as  to  the  supporting  power  of  those  hangers  are 
based  upon  the  ultimate  supporting  power,  or  upon  the  power  with  a 
repetition  of  the  load?     A.    The  ultimate  power,  the  ultimate  sup- 
porting power,  the  ultimate  strength. 

Q.  Will  you  repeat  what  the  ultimate  strength  of  the  hangers  is? 
Twenty-five  thousand,  I  think  you  said,  for  each.  A.  Something 
like  2">,000.  It  is  a  thing  that  cannot  be  figured  exactly,  because  it 
would  depend  to  some  extent  on  the  play  of  the  pin  in  the  top  of  the 
hanger.  If  that  pin  fitted  exactly,  so  the  hanger  would  be  obliged  to 
hang  just  as  it  is  there,  it  would  have  a  certain  strength.  If  that  pin 
would  turn  a  little,  so  the  pin  below  could  come  underneath,  it  would 
make  a  different  strength.  Now,  with  those  two  hangers  together, 
both  on  the  same  pin  and  coming  to  a  centre,  there  would  not  be  any 
tendency  to  tip;  but  one  being  broken,  the  other  one  might  turn  u 
little  in  the  socket.  On  the  supposition  that  both  hangers  were 
sound,  and  both  hung  in  an  upright  position,  as  they  are  seen  there, 
the  ultimate  strength  is  from  20,000  to  25,000  pounds.     They  are  not 


35(5  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

both  of  the  same  dimensions  :  one  is  something  like  18,000  or  19,000 
pounds;   18,000,  perhaps. 

Q.  If  the  one  broke,  would  the  other  be  stronger  by  reason  of  the 
breaking  of  its  mate,  that  is,  have  more  supporting  power?  A.  It 
might  possibly  be  a  little  stronger  than  it  was  before,  because  then  it 
would  be  allowed  to  swing  a  little  on  the  upper  pin,  providing  that 
pin  had  a  little  play. 

Q.  You  estimate  50,000  pounds  as  the  ultimate  supporting  power? 
A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  the  two  would  bear  any  m<>re  than  that. 

Q.  The  post,  I  understand,  you  put  at  from  30,000  to  45,000?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  be  from  80,000  to  100,000  pounds.  Now,  how 
does  that  differ  from  the  supporting  power  with  the  constantly  re- 
peated load?  A.  The  supporting  power  with  the  constant^  repeated 
load  would  be  considerably  less.  It  would  be,  perhaps,  not  more 
than  three-quarters  of  that,  and  even  less. 

Q.  So  that  on  those  figures  this  bridge  was  practically  carrying 
with  every  locomotive  that  passed  over  it  its  wh  »le  suppoiting  power? 
A.    Almost ;  yes,  sir,  very  nearly. 

Edmund  H.  Hewins —  recalled. 

Mr.  Hewins.  I  wanted  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  relation  to  what 
appears  to  be  a  discrepancy  of  recollection  in  regard  to  the  I  beam 
column,  which  was  under  these  broken  hangers,  that  I  think  Mr. 
Swain  must  be  mistaken  as  to  the  beam  which  he  saw,  for  I  am  very 
positive  that  the  beam  which  I  pointed  out  to  Professor  Vose  was  the 
b  am  in  question.  How  that  beam  got  bent  afterwards  into  the 
shape  that  it  now  is  I  cannot  explain  ;  nor  have  I  succeeded  in  ob- 
taining a  satisfact  >ry  explanation,  or  what  seems  so  to  me.  There 
was  a  small  part  of  the  beam,  as  I  saw  it  lying  there,  concealed  by 
the  wreck,  and  is  not  shown  by  the  photograph  to  which  Professor 
Swain  referred.  The  beam  which  is  indicated  there  as  being  straight, 
I  recollect  very  well,  and  it  was  not  confounded  in  my  mind  with  the 
one  which  I  believe  to  be  the  column.  In  relation  to  loop  eyes,  it  has 
been  the  practice  of  large  building  concerns  to  use  them.  0/  course 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  I  think  they  are  as  good  as  hydraulic-forged  or 
die- forged  eyes,  but  they  have  been  used  to  a  large  extent  by  large 
bridge  builders. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Name  them,  please. 

Mr.  Hewins.  Perhaps  I  ought  not  to  say  large  builders,  because 
there  is  only  one  which  I  recollect  now  to  have  used  them,  I  don't 
know  its  name,  but  at  Buffalo,  the  Union  Iron  Works,  it  is.  I  know 
they  had  special  appliances  for  miking  that  form  of  eye,  and  that 
they  used  them  to  a  large  extent. 


APPENDIX.  357 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  That  the  only  one?  A.  That  is  the  only 
one  I  recollect  now.  There  are  two  or  three  other  things  which,  as 
they  came  up  in  the  evidence,  I  thought  I  would  speak  about,  but  I 
do  not  recollect  what  they  arc  now. 

Q.  When  you  built  this  bridge,  Mr.  Hewins,did  you  have  a  regular 
plan  and  specifications  made  out  for  the  bridge  you  proposed  to  build? 
A.    No  other  specification  than  has  been  presented  to  you. 

Q.  Only  this  letter?  A.  Only  that ;  later  the  plans  were  made  in 
detail. 

Q.    Have  you  got  them?     A.    I  have. 

Q.    Will  you  bring  them  here?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now.  I  want  to  understand  this  thing  thoroughly.  The  Boston 
ami  Providence  Railroad  Company  contracted  for  a  bridge,  and  all 
that  ever  passed  between  you  and  them  in  writing  was  your  letter  to 
them;   is  that  it?     A.    I  think  so  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  never  gave  you  any  contract ;  they  never  told  you  what 
they  wanted?  A.  I  think  that  letter  was  the  result  of  negotiation 
with  them  as  to  what  the  bri  Ige  should  be. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  ever  put  hangers  like  these  into 
any  other  bridge?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  any  individual  instance, 
and  presume  I  never  made  hangers  that  wore  precisely  like  those  ; 
but  I  have  made  tension  bars,  as  the}'  should  properly  be  called,  in 
that  same  manner,  though  where  they  are  I  cannot  recollect.  And  I 
have  tested  them  in  testing  machines,  and  I  know  from  those  tests —  [ 
cannot  give  the  figures,  for  I  have  no  record  of  them  —  that  the  red.  c- 
tion  of  strength  is  very  much  less  than  has  been  stated,  —  from  actual 
tests.  And  I  would  suggest  that  one  or  more  hangers  be  made,  as 
near  like  these  as  possible,  and  that  they  be  taken  to  Watertown  and 
tested  to  determine  that  thing. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  made  tension  bars  or  hangers  similar  to 
these  for  other  bridges?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  support  the  floor  beams?  A.  I  cannot  recollect  now  the 
particular  uses  to  which  they  were  put ;  but  I  do  know  that  in  order 
to  make  tension  bars  with  eccentric  eyes,  ami  to  ascertain  what  their 
proportion  should  be,  knowing  that  it  would  take  more  iron  to  obtain 
the  same  strength,  I  made  tests,  and  in  that  way  determined,  some- 
what roughly,  a  rule  ;  and  in  proportioning  these  hangers  an  allowance 
was  made  for  that,  which  I  then  believed,  and  now  believe,  to  have 
been  sufficient. 

Q.  When  you  made  these  hangers,  had  you  any  test  made  of  the 
effect  of  such  eccentricity  ?     A .    That  is  what  I  meant  to  say  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  had  it  made  before  these  hangers  were  made?  A.  In 
my  experience  of  years  before. 

Q.    Where  were  the  tests  made?     A.    At  Keadville. 


358  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  By  what  company?  A.  By  myself,  the 
New  England  Iron  Works. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Where  are  the  records  of  those  tests? 
A.  There  are  no  records.  I  thought  I  had  them,  but  I  searched  for 
them  and  did  not  find  them.  Perhaps  it  is  proper  to  say  here  that  at 
Readville  I  had  the  use  of  one  of  the  best  large  testing  machines,  per- 
haps the  most  accurate  and  reliable  machine  at  that  time  in  the 
country.  And  I  believe  there  are  few  engineers  in  this  country,  and 
none  in  New  England,  who  have  destroyed  as  much  iron  as  I  have  in 
making  tests. 

Q.  You  made  tests  of  eccentric  hangers  at  Readville,  at  the  New 
England  Iron  Works,  before  yon  built  this  bridge?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  order  to  see  what  the  strength  of  these  special  hangers  would 
be  :  A.  Oh,  no,  for  some  particular  use  to  which  I  wanted  to  put 
them.     What  that  use  was,  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  In  order  to  test  what  effect  eccentricity  had  upon  the  strength 
of  the  iron?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  conclusion  did  you  arrive  at  with  regard  to  it?  A. 
What  the  rule  was,  or  what  extra  allowance  of  iron  must  be  made  I 
find  no  record  of,  and  I  cannot  recollect  now. 

Q.  Did  you  know  at  that  time,  or  do  \  on  know  now,  that  the  prob- 
lem is  a  problem  that'has  been  solved  scientifically,  mathematically? 
A.    No  doubt  men  have  made  mathematical  calculations  upon  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  result  of  those  mathematical  calculations 
is?     A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  know  anything  about  the  mathematical 
problem  ?  Had  you  ever  attempted  t  >  work  it  out  ?  A.  I  did  attempt 
to  work  it  out'  myself,  but  I  depended  more  upon  my  practical  tests 
than  I  did  upon  any  theory  that  I  was  able  to  form. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  test  iron  with  the  same  defect  of  eccentricity  that 
these  hangers  had?     A.   1  think  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know?  A.  I  know  that  the  bir  was  straight  on  one 
side ;  the  direction  of  the  bar  was  tangent  to  the  pin,  as  it  is  in  this 
case. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  element  that  enters  into  the  strength  of  these 
bars,  except  that,  that  one  side  is  straight?  A.  Well,  of  course  the 
strain  was  more  or  less  convex, 

Q.  Was  there  anything  that  you  did  boforo  you  made  these  irons 
that  could  properly  bo  considered  as  a  test  of  the  strength  of  exactly 
such  hangers  as  these?  A.  I  never  tested  hangers  with  exactly  these 
dimensions. 

Q,  Did  you  ever  test  the  hangers  of  exactly  the  dimensions  of  any 
hangers  that  you  put  into  any  of  the  bridges?  A.  My  tests  were 
made  upon  hangers  of  the  actual  size  of  construction,  intended  for 


APPENDIX.  359 

construction.     What   the  dimensions  were  I   cannot  recollect,  but  I 
think  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  size  of  these. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  put  any  other  hangers  into  bridges,  which  were 
eccentric,  and  which  you  have  not  tested  exactly  as  they  were  made? 
A.  At  the  time  I  made  those  tests  they  must  have  been,  although 
I  cannot  recollect  the  instance,  for  some  particular  purpose  ;  and  it 
was  just  as  easy  for  me  to  make  the  tests  of  the  actual  size  intended 
to  be  used  ;  and  while  I  do  not  recollect  it,  I  have  no  doubt  the  same 
size  precisely  was  used. 

Q.  May  you  not  also  have  put  in  other  hangers  of  not  exactly  the 
same  size,  and  without  any  special  test,  just  the  same  as  these  were 
put  iu?     A.   I  do  not  recollect  of  any  ease. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  not  important  that  you  should  look  over  your  records 
and  find  out  now,  owing  to  the  statement  that  you  have  heard  here 
to-day  in  regard  to  the  weakness  of  these  hangers?  A.  Yes  ;  I  think 
very  likely  it  is. 

Q.  Are  there  any  such  hangers  in  Massachusetts?  A.  Not  that  I 
know  of. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  whether  there  are  or  not?  A.  I  have  no  recollec- 
tion of  any. 

Q.  Can  you  say  certainly,  whether  any  of  the  bridges  which  you 
have  built  in  Massachusetts  have  such  hangers  in  them?  A.  lean 
say  I  do  not  believe  there  are. 

Q.  Is  there  any  way  of  your  finding  out  with  absolute  certainty 
about  that?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  do  so,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Com- 
mission?    A.    Certainty. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Do  you  know  of  a  single  bridge  in  this 
country  that  has  such  a  hanger  in  it,  Mr.  Hevvins?  A.  I  cannot  tell 
of  any  instance ;  I  cannot  recall  it  now.. 

Q.  Or  of  a  bridge  that  ever  had  such  a  hanger?  A.  I  cannot  re- 
call an  instance. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  you  know  whether  there  are  any  that 
you  cannot  recall?  A.  I  know  that  I  have  made  hangers  or  tension 
bars  with  eyes  eccentric. 

Q.  For  bridges?  A.  I  think  it  must  have  been  for  bridges,  but  I 
cannot  recollect  the  place  where  they  are  or  ever  were. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  By  tension  bars,  do  you  mean  hangers 
for  bridges?     A.    I  mean  a  bar  under  tension. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  These  are  what  you  call  bars  under  ten- 
sion? (Referring  to  the  hanger  exhibits.)     A.    Thai  is  a  tension  bar. 

Q.    To  be  used  as  supporters  of  a  road-bed?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Like  these?  You  have  made  them  and  put  them  into  other 
bridges?     A.    With  eccentric  eyes;  yes,  sir. 


360  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Why  did  you  use  this  mode  of  forging  the 
links  instead  of  what  you  call  hydraulic-forged  eyes?  A.  For  the 
reason  that  at  the  time  those  were  made  I  found  no  dies  of  a  size  to 
fit  this  case.  I  sought  for  them,  and  if  I  could  have  found  them  I 
should  have  had  them  die-forged. 

Q.  On  account  of  the  size  of  the  pins,  then,  it  was  necessary  to 
have  those  done  by  simple  turning,  iron  welding?  A.  Well,  not  on 
account  of  the  size  of  the  pins,  but  the  proportion  of  the  eye  includ- 
ing the  pin  arid  the  bar.  They  have  dies  for  larger  pins,  —  larger  pins 
than  these. 

Q.  Then  a  die  is  something  more  than  a  hole  punched  ?  A.  Oh, 
yes  ;  all  the  tension  bars  of  the  same  bridge  were  die-forged. 

Q.  Were  you  not  aware  that  this  kind  of  welding  does  not  secure 
as  much  strength  in  the  weld  as  the  other  mode  by  which  they  are 
hydraulic-forged,  as  you  call  it?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.    Did  you  make  allowance  for  that?     I  believed  I  did. 

Q.  You  personally  supervised  the  erection  of  the  bridge,  did  you 
not?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  personally  saw  these  hangers  put  in,  did  you  not?  A. 
I  have  no  doubt  I  did. 

Q.  You  saw  them  after  they  came  from  trie  shop?  A.  I  presume 
so  ;  I  have  no  doubt. 

Q.  At  that  time  did  they  show  the  gaps  in  the  welds  which 
appear  now?  A.  As  I  have  no  positive  recollection  of  having  looked 
at  them,  although  1  believe  I  did  look  at  them,  of  course  I  cannot 
state  from  recollection  that  they  had  any  such  appearance.  But  I 
know  certainly  that  I  should  not  have  put  them  in  without  examining 
them,  and  without  having  them,  apparently,  so  far  as  I  could  see, 
perfect. 

Q.  Then  you  are  satisfied,  are  you  not,  that  at  the  time  you  put 
them  in,  the  welds  had  not  started  in  the  way  they  appear  to  have 
started  now?  A.  Most  certainly.  And,  in  addition,  my  representa- 
tive was  at  the  works  all  the  time,  and  it  was  his  duty,  and  I  believe 
he  performed  it  faithfully,  to  inspect  every  piece  of  iron  that  went 
into  the  structure  with  the  utmost  care. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  doubt,  have  you,  Mr.  Hewins,  that  these 
pieces,  when  made,  were  well  made,  according  to  the  design?  A.  I 
believe  so. 

Q.  And  you  are  satisfied,  I  take  it,  that  the  starting  of  these  forg- 
ings  is  due  to  the  eccentricity  of  the  eyes?     A.    Not  that. 

Q.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  breakage  of  this  accident,  but  to  the  start- 
ing of  the  welds,  which,  I  believe,  appears  in  the  eyes  which  have  not 
broken  as  well  as  in  those  that  have?     A.  I  believe  that  was  started 


APPENDIX.  3G1 

by  the  fracture.  I  believe  that  weld  was  partially  open,  as  it  now 
seems  to  be,  at  the  time  of  the  failure. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  the  two  welds  in  "S"  were,  in  your  opinion, 
started  at  the  time  of  the  failure?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  the  weld  in  "  P"?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  think,  then,  if  these  hangers  had  been  taken  out  before  the 
bridge  fell  that  these  cracks  in  the  weld,  starts  in  the  weld,  would  not 
have  appeared?     A.    I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  build  some  bridges  on  the  extension  of  the  Boston  & 
Maine  Bailroad  in  Maine?  A.  Yes,  as  engineer  for  the  New  Eng- 
land Iron  Works. 

Q.  About  what  year  was  that?  A.  I  think  it  must  have  been  in 
1870  or  1871  or  1872,  or  somewhere  along  there. 

Q.  And  how  many  did  you  build  there?  A.  I  do  not  recollect, 
but  there  were  three  or  four. 

Q.  Did  you  build  any  other  iron  bridges  in  New  England  between 
1870  and  187G?  A.  I  am  trying  to  recollect  the  date  when  the 
Waterbury  bridge  was  built;  I  cannot  recollect  its  date,  but  it  was 
between  those  dates. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  bridge  was  that?  A.  There  were  three  spans 
of  140  feet  each,  through  bridges. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  truss  was  used?  A.  It  is  what  was  called  a 
single  intersection  track  truss. 

Q.  Like  the  old  truss  in  this  bridge,  except  a  single  intersection 
instead  of  a  double?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  except  in  its  outline  ;  except  that 
the  end  post  would  incline. 

Q.  That  had  a  continuous  upper  chord,  I  suppose?  A.  No,  sir; 
cast-iron  joint  blocks. 

Q.  Like  this?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  there  were  two  spans  of  150  feet 
each,  also,  on  the  Central  Vermont  Road,  built  since. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  The  same  bridge?  A.  No,  sir;  at 
another  place. 

Q.  The  Waterbury  bridge  was  the  one  that  fell  down  under  the 
test,  was  it  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Did  you  build  those  that  you  refer  to? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  two  spans  of  150  feet  each  ;  they  were  built  at  different 
times,  I  think  in  succeeding  years. 

Q.    After  this  one  went  down  ?     A.   Yes,  sir,  afterwards. 

Q.  What  sort  of  bridges  were  those?  A.  Well,  those  were,  in 
their  outline,  very  similar  to  this  Bussey  bridge,  except  that  they  are 
thtough  bridges  instead  of  deck  bridges. 

Q.  When  did  you  build  those?  A.  I  cannot  recollect  the  date; 
I  can  ascertain  it  and  give  it  to  you,  if  you  like. 


302  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Was  it  before  the  Busscy  bridge?  A.  Before  the  Bussey 
bridge. 

(.,).  What  was  put  in  place  of  the  Waterbury  bridge  that  went 
down  ?     A.    I  rebuilt  it. 

Q.  Did  you  rebuild  it  in  the  same  form,  or  different?  A.  In  the 
same,  precisely.  After  the  failure,  the  president  of  the  road  appointed 
three  commissioners,  as  he  told  me,  each  unknown  to  the  other  and 
unknown  to  me  then  or  since  ;  that  they  each  investigated  it  on  their 
own  account  and  made  their  reports  independent  of  the  other  ;  that 
the  design  was  correct,  the  proportions  were  correct ;  the  only  pos- 
sible thing  they  could  account  for  was  bad  iron.  And  the  president 
of  the  road  authorized  me  to  replace  all  the  tension  iron  in  the  bridge 
with  new,  and  I  did  it. 

Q.    And  rebuilt  the  bridge?     A.    And  rebuilt  the  bridge. 

Q.    Did  it  stand  then  ?     A.    It  did. 

Q.    Is  it  there  now?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  two?  A.  The  other  two  are  there,  I 
suppose. 

Q.  All  these  were  built  before  the  Bussey  bridge,  as  I  understand? 
A.    All  before  the  Bussey  bridge,  if  I  remember  rightly*. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  instances  in  which  parts  as  important  as 
these  hangers  were  out  of  sight?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  there  were, 
although  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  recad,  at  the  moment,  the  fact. 

Q.  How  about  those  two  bridges  in  Vermont  which  were  built  on 
similar  trusses  ;  were  the  floors  hung?  A.  The  floors  were  hung  be- 
low.    Those  are  through  bridges. 

Q.  Are  they  hung  from  the  lower  chord?  A.  They  are  hung  from 
the  lower  chord,  suspended  from  the  pin  and  lower  chord. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  the  floor  beams  do  not  rest  on  the  lower 
chord,  but  are  hung  below  it?     A.    Hung  below  it;  }'es,  sir. 

Q.  How  are  they  hung?  A.  They  are  hung  by  the  round  bar  ex- 
tending up  over  the  pin,  forming  an  inverted  U,  straddling  the  floor 
beams  and  going  over  washers  under  the  floor  beams,  with  nuts  on 
the  end. 

Q.  Then,  if  those  nuts  should  strip,  it  would  go,  would  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  put  those  hangers  on  the  outside  of  the  truss, 
and  make  them  solid  stirrups  instead  of  eyes?  A.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  can  recollect  now  just  why  I  d  d  not  make  them  differently  ;  it 
is  a  prett}r  hard  tiling  to  do. 

Q.  Does  it  not  strike  you  now  that  it  would  have  been  more 
simple,  strong  and  conspicuous  construction  to  have  put  the  whole 
hanging  apparatus  outside  of  the  truss,  instead  of  covering  it  up  in 


APPENDIX.  363 

that  angle  block?     A.    Undoubtedly  it  is  better  to  have  every  part  as 
open  for  inspection  as  possible. 

Q.  If  these  bangers  were  what  gave  way  and  did  cause  this  disas- 
ter, it  is  simply  they  were  improperly  designed  and  were  out  of  sight; 
those  two  things  together,  was  it  not?  A.  Please  leave  out  "  im- 
properly designed,"  and  let  it  go  as  out  of  sight. 

Q.  Well,  their  being  out  of  sight  would  have  done  no  harm  if  the 
design  had  been  good,  would  it?  A.  ''Improperly  designed,"  per- 
haps, is  not  a  good  word  ;  they  were  badly  designed,  perhaps. 

Q.  Undoubtedly.  I  am  willing  to  accept  the  designation  of 
"  badly  designed."  There  is  an  unfairness  about  "  improperly "  ;  I 
should  not  have  used  it.  A.  Undoubtedly,  in  the  form  in  which 
they  are  made  they  would  require  more  iron  to  obtain  the  same 
strength  than  in  some  other  possible  form.  There  is  no  doubt  about 
that.  And  I  certainly  believed  then,  as  I  do  now,  that  provision  had 
been  made  for  that,  and  that  extra  material  had  been  put  in. 

Q.  There  was  no  economy  or  saving  to  you  in  putting  them  in  this 
way  as  compared  with  putting  them  on  the  outside,  was  there?  A. 
No,  sir;  the  only  reason  that  suggests  itsilf  to  my  mind  now  is,  that 
it  was  putting  the  parts  more  compactly  together. 

(^.  It  would  not  have  cost  you  a  dollar  more,  would  it?  A.  I 
cannot  see  why  it  should. 

Q.  And  the  fact  is,  I  take  it,  that  you  did  not  dream  there  was  the 
smallest  danger?  A.  If  I  had  dreamed  it,  I  certainly  should  not 
have  put  them  there. 

Q.  I  judge  from  what  you  say,  Mr.  Ilewins,  that  you  still  think- 
that  the  falling  of  the  bridge  was  not  occasioned  by  the  breaking  of 
the  hangers  ;  if  so,  will  you  please  explain  why?  A.  Well,  there  are 
marks  of  something  haviug  traversed  some  portion  of  the  length  of 
the  upper  chord,  on  its  upper  side,  in  a  trough  on  its  upper  side.  I 
cannot  conceive  of  any  portion  of  the  train  that  could  have  made  those 
marks,  —  and  I  assume  that  whatever  made  those  marks  struck  the 
casting,  —  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  portion  of  the  train  could  have 
done  that  so  long  as  the  wheels  were  upon  the  track.  There  is  no 
portion  of  the  truck  that  extends  far  enough  from  the  rails  to  do  it. 
Now,  whether  it  was  a  wheel  that  was  over  there,  or  what,  I  do  not 
know  ;  but  there  was  something  out  of  its  alignment  as  well  as  out  of 
its  level. 

<,).  That  is,  before  the  joint  block  was  struck  the  truss  knocked 
clown?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  the  hangers  could  not  have  gone  before  the 
truss  was  knocked  down?  A.  I  believe  that  the  blow  that  struck 
that  casting  broke  the  hangers.  I  believe  it  also  drove  the  whole 
truss  on  end.     There  is  evidence  of  that   shown  upon  the  iron  now. 


364  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  wall  plate,  resting  upon  the  bridge  seat  at  the  Boston  end,  shows 
that  the  casting  which  rests  upon  it  was  knocked  off,  as  I  believe,  by 
this  same  blow. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  you,  you  think  that  the  blow  which 
knocked  out  the  joint  block,  and  knocked  down  the  truss,  came  end- 
wise and  knocked  the  truss  endwise,  the  whole  truss?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  such  force  as  to  knock  the  bed  plate  at  the  north  end 
against  the  abutment?  A.  Knock  off  the  lug  which  projects  upward 
to  prevent  motion  and  allowed  the  casting  at  the  end  of  the  inclined 
end  post  to  slip  off  from  the  post  against  the  stone,  against  the 
upright  part  of  the  abutment,. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  must  have  been  after  the  cars  had  been  de- 
railed?    A.    I  do  not  sec  how  any  portion  of  a  car  hit  it  otherwise. 

Q.  Why  should  not  a  derailment  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
breaking  of  the  hangers?  A.  If  those  hangers  broke,  and  the  floor 
beneath  dropped,  it  seems  to  me  it  must  have  dropped  a  considerable 
distance  to  have  caused  derailment,  to  have  obtained  a  sutficiant  incli- 
nation of  the  floor  beam  to  have  caused  the  wheels  to  leave  the  track  ; 
so  that  the  truck  would  have  gone  down  inside  of  the  main  truss 
instead  of  on  top  of  it. 

Q.  As  I  understand,  this  grinding  of  the  main  truss  by  the  wheel 
of  the  car  is  south  of  the  joint  block,  is  it  not,  and  not  north  of  it? 
A.    Yes.  sir;  south  of  it. 

Q  Why  should  not  the  derailment  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
breaking  of  the  hangers,  the  settling  of  the  floor,  the  raising  up  of  the 
two  ends  of  the  stringers  which  ended  a  little  way  south  of  the  joint 
block,  so  throwing  off  first  one  car  and  then  another?  A.  Undoubt- 
edly that  would  have  ultimately  caused  a  derailment.  It  would  also 
have  caused  a  blow  against  the  inner  side  of  the  truss,  not  on  its  front 
side  ;  the  trucks  would  have  dropped  down  inside  of  the  truss,  and 
not  have  got  on  top  of  it. 

Q.  These  places  upon  the  top  side  of  the  truss  indicate  there  was 
a  train  off  of  the  track  before  the  track  had  sunken  any?  A.  I  think 
so  ;  and  that  blow,  in  my  opinion,  is  sufficient  to  break  those  hang- 
ers. And  there  is  another  thing  which  is  evidence  to  my  mind  that 
these  hangers  have  had  an  undue  strain,  which  is  that  the  form  of  the 
hangers  wdiere  they  clasped  around  the  pin  is  imbedded  in  the  iron. 

Q.  Into  what  iron?  A.  Into  the  iron  of  the  pin.  And  you  cannot 
get  such  an  impression  as  that  upon  a  pin  broken  by  a  straight  pull 
unless  by  an  illegitimate  strain.  There  is  no  other  pin  on  the  bridge 
that  shows  such  a  mark. 

Q.  You  think  that  that  mark  must  have  been  caused  by  a  blow, 
and  not  by  a  steady  strain?  A.  I  believe  by  a  blow.  A  mark  would 
have  been  shown  by  a  steady  strain  which  was  sufficient  to  break  the 


APPENDIX.  365 

bar ;  that  is,  assuming  it  to  be  a  perfect  bar.  Such  a  mark  would 
not  be  shown  upon  a  pin  unless  by  a  strain  sufficient  to  rupture  a  bat 
of  somewhat  that  proportion. 

Q.  Which  pin  is  that  mark  on?  A.  The  pin  at  the  lower  end  of 
these  bangers  through  the  floor  beams. 

Q.    Where  is  that  pin?     A.    At  Roxbury. 

Q.  Is  it  separate  by  itself?  A.  It  is  in  its  place,  or  was  a  few 
days  ago. 

Q.    In  its  place  in  the  beam?     A.    It  was  a  few  days  ago. 

Q.  It  could  be  taken  out  and  brought  here,  I  suppose?  A.  It 
could  ;  >es,  sir.     It  was  partially  in  its  place  ;  it  was  not  clear  in. 

Q.  You  think,  then,  it  does  not  argue  any  imperfection  in  these 
hangers  that  the}*  should  have  broken  under  any  such  blow  as  you 
suppose  struck  that  joint  block  and  carried  down  that  bridge?  A. 
I  think  they  should  break  under  that  blow. 

Q.    Even  when  they  were  fresh?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Explain  why  and  how.  A.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  it 
might  have  broken.  The  one  which  seems  to  me  to  be  the  most 
reasonable  is,  as  I  described  the  other  day,  by  the  leverage  of  the 
beam.  If  it  was  done  in  that  way,  it  was  not  so  sudden  a  break  as 
if  by  an  instant  blow.  Whether  that  blow  produced  a  sheering  strain 
upon  those  hangers  that  might  have  broken  it,  or  whether  it  was  in 
the  fall  when  the  beam  acted  as  a  lever  with  a  very  short  bite,  — 
either  one  of  those  two  ways. 

Q.  The  position  of  the  floor  beam  shown  in  the  photograph  with 
its  abutment  end  upward  and  leaning  against  the  abutment  and  its 
upward  end  on  the  ground  on  top  of  the  bottom  chord  does  not  indi- 
cate that  it  could  have  fallen  in  such  a  way  as  to  use  this  leverage  to 
break  these  hangers,  does  it?  A.  I  think  it  does.  If  one  end 
remains  up  and  the  other  goes  down,  there  has  got  to  be  some  lever- 
age. 

Q.  Does  it  not  depend  on  which  end  remains  up  or  which  goes 
down?  A.  No,  sir;  it  would  make  no  difference  which  end  remained 
up,  the  leverage  is  the  same  in  amount  either  way. 

Q.  And  it  would  take  a  very  short  time  and  it  would  require  move- 
ment through  a  very  short  space  to  break  them,  would  it?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  very  short  as  compared  with  the  whole  fall. 

Q.  Supposing  the  hangers  did  break  6r»t,  can  you  understand  how 
the  three  cars  got  over?  A.  Not  satisfactorily  ;  and  yet  I  can  con- 
ceive that  it  is  possible,  perhaps,  knowing  that  they  did  get  over. 

Q.  In  the  absence,  then,  of  any  positive  evidence  of  any  derailing 
cau-e,  do  you  think  it  is  safe  to  infer  that  there  was  a  derailment 
before  the  hangers  gave  way?  A.  I  do  not  think  I  understand  the 
question. 


306  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Tf  the  hangers  broke  under  the  weight  of  the  engine,  they 
would  cause  a  derailment,  would  they  not?     A.    Ultimately. 

Q.  And  you  think  it  is  conceivable  that  three  cars  should  have  got 
over  before  the  bridge  went  down?  A.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  they 
did,  yes,  sir;  but  I  should  have  been  surprised. 

(,).  But  we  are  trying  to  get  at  what  happened  first,  the  breaking  of 
the  hangers  or  the  derailment?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  3011  whether  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that  a  derail- 
ment preceded  the  breaking  of  the  hangers  in  order  to  account  for  the 
three  cars  getting  over?     A.    I  do  not  think  it  is. 

Q.  Then  the  fact  that  the  three  cars  got  over  is  not  conclusive  evi- 
dence, in  your  mind,  that  derailment  preceded  the  breaking  of  the 
hangers?     No,  sir. 

Q.  But  the  fact  that  the  cars  appear  to  have  gone  along  on  the  top 
chord  southerly  of  the  joint  block  before  the  bridge  went  down  is,  to 
your  mind,  evidence  that  derailment  occurred  before  the  breaking  of 
the  hangers,  is  it  not?     A.    It  is  evidence  to  1113-  mind  ;  3-es,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  think  was  the  fact?  A.  I  think  there  was 
something  off  the  track. 

Q.    Before  the  hangers  broke?     A.    Before  the  hangers  broke. 

Q.  Suppose  the  hangers  broke  first,  how  would  the  cars  get  over? 
A.  Well,  the  stringer  S3stem  in  itself,  the  iron  and  the  wood  bound 
together  as  they  were,  would  have  been  of  some  help  to  getting  over  ; 
how  much,  I  do  not  know  ;  some. 

Q.  Were  the  stringers  connected  together  by  their  tension  rods 
being  fastened  to  some  link  in  the  wa37  I  described  in  my  question  to 
Professor  Swain,  this  morning?     A.    With  the  same  pin,  you  mean? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Certainly  ;  made  a  continuous  stringer  from  end  to 
end  of  the  bridge  ;  not  a  continuous  beam,  I  do  not  mean,  but  a  con- 
tinuous stringer. 

Q.  And  the  effect  of  the  tension  rods  being  connected  together  by 
a  pin  in  this  way  was  the  same  as  if  the  stringers  had  been  linked 
together  with  a  cast-iron  bar  between  them  to  keep  them  apart,  is  it 
not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  end  of  the  stringer  S3Tstem  anchored  to  the  abutment 
on  the  north  side?  A.  That  I  do  not  know.  I  cannot  recollect 
whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  Have  3011  any  opinion  about  it?  A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  have, 
positively. 

Q.  I  mean,  reasoning  from  probabilities  in  the  construction?  A. 
Well,  it  is  very  likely. 

Q.  Was  that  the  end  of  the  bridge  that  was  anchored?'  A.  That 
end  of  the  main  truss  was  anchored. 

Q.    And  the  other  end  was  free?     A.    The  other  end  was  free,  with 


APPENDIX.  367 

allowance  for  expansion  and  contraction.     If  the  stringers  were  fast- 
ened at  the  free  end,  it  would  have  been  at  the  northern  end. 

t>.  Was  the  stringer  bolted  to  the  floor  beam?  A.  I  think  it  was  ; 
I  cannot  recollect  positively  the  detail  of  that  connection,  but  I  think 
it  was  bolted.  It  was,  at  least,  so  fastened  to  the  floor  beam  that  it 
should  not  slide  in  either  direction;  whether  it  was  bolted  down  solid 
to  it,  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Mr.  Hewins,  you  have,  I  suppose,  mem- 
oranda of  all  the  bridges  you  have  built,  have  you  not?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  arc  going  to  furnish  ns  a  list  of  the  bridges  which  have 
these  hangers?  You  told  Mr.  Crocker  you  would  do  that?  A.  I 
think  you  misunderstood  me,  because  I  do  not  think  I  can  do  it.  If 
I  can  find  the  record,  I  certainly  will. 

Q.  You  have  been  a  manufacturer  of  bridges  for  ten  or  twelve 
years.  Is  it  a  fact  that  you  cannot  give  a  list  of  the  bridges  you 
have  made?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  That  you  do  not  know  the  bridges  that  3-011  have  made?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  queer.  Well,  can  you  give  us  a  list  of  the  bridges 
which  you  have  built  in  Massachusetts?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kinsley.     I  wish  you  would  do  that. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  have  not  been  in  the  bridge  business 
of  late  years?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.    For  how  many  years?     A.    About  ten  years. 

Q.  And  you  are  now  in  what  business?  A.  The  electric  light 
business. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  communicated  with  the  New  Jersey 
Steel  and  Iron  Company  in  regard  to  this  bridge,  and  have  n 
from  them  the  following  letter.  Mr.  Hewins.  1  want  to  ask  you  one 
or  two  questions  about  this  letter  before  you  leave.  This  is  from  the 
New  Jersey  Steel  and  Iron  Company  ;  the  Trenton  Iron  Works,  we 
understand,  are  practically  the  same  thing.      (Reading.) 

Office  of  the  New  Jersey  Stef.i.  and  Iron  Company, 

Tkenton,  N.  J.,  March  -J l,  1887. 

Edward  W.  Kinsley,  Esq.,  Railroad  Commissioner,  20  Beacon  Street^ 
Boston. 
Dear  Sir:  — In  response  to  your  request  for  a  statement  of  any  facts 
within  our  knowledge  bearing  upon  the  construction  of  the  Bussey  bridge, 
we  have  to  say:  The  Bussey  bridge  was  built  in  part  at  our  works  by  tin; 
Metropolitan"  Bridge  Company,  of  which  Mr.  Hewins  was  tin-  engineer. 
We  had  no  interest  in  that  company.  Mr.  Hewins  had  been  tin'  engineer 
of  the  New  England  Iron  Company,  and  soon  after  die  closing  "fits  works 
applied  to  us  to  form  a  bridge  building  company,  with  himself  as  engineer. 


368  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

This  we  declined  to  do.  lie  (hen  stated  that  he  had  already  taken  contracts 
for  certain  bridges,  and  asked  us  to  afford  him  the  use  of  such  of  our  tools 
and  men  as  he  might  require  to  do  the  work  himself,  under  the  charge  of 
his  own  superintendent.  We  agreed  to  this,  and  to  a  schedule  of  prices  for 
the  use  of  the  tools  and  men  ;  and  Mr.  Meade,  formerly  of  the  New  England 
Iron  Company,  was  placed  by  Mr.  Hewing  in  charge  of  the  work  as  his 
superintendent.  Under  this  arrangement  we  supplied  a  part  of  the  iron 
for  the  bridge  (about  twenty  tons),  but  Mr.  Meade  had  the  entire  charge 
and  control  of  the  manipulation,  the  forging,  fitting  and  inspection  of  the 
work.  At  that  time  we  had  no  bridge  shop,  and  were  not  builders  of  rail, 
road  bridges.  Our  tools  used  by  Mr.  Meade  were  such  as  we  had  for  our 
miscellaneous  repairs  and  beam  work.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
plans,  specifications  or  strain  sheets,  which  we  never  saw. 
Yours  respectfully, 

Fred.  J.  Slade,  Engineer. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Ts  that  a  correct  statement,  Mr.  Hewins, 
of  jour  connection  with  the  New  Jerse}'  Steel  and  Iron  Company? 
A.    That  is  as  I  recollect  it;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam  )  Did  you  purchase  the  iron  yourself,  Mr* 
Hewins,  for  this  wotk  at  the  Trenton  Iron  Works?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  got  it  there  or  in  the  market?  A.  Some  of  it  was  made 
by  the  New  Jersey  Steel  and  Iron  Company  and  some  of  it  by  the 
Phoenix  Iron  Company.  I  do  not  recollect  that  any  was  gotten  anj-- 
where  else  ;  I  think  not. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Is  the  Phoenix  Iron  Compan}'  and  the 
New  Jersey  Steel  and  Iron  Company  the  same  thing?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  The  Phoenix  Iron  Company  is  where? 
A.    At  Phoenixville,  Pa. 

Q.  (B\r  Mr.  Putnam.)  All  the  tension  iron  of  the  bridge  except 
these  hangers  came  from  the  Phoenix  Iron  Companj',  did  it  not?  A. 
Yes  ;  and  I  am  not  certain  but  they  furnished  those.  I  do  not  re- 
collect whether  they  were  furnished  by  the  New  Jersey  Steel  and  Iron 
Company  or  by  the  Phoenix  Iron  Company. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  Was  your  work  at  the  Phoenix  Iron  Com- 
pany, or  your  dealing  with  them,  the  same  as  with  the  New  Jersey 
Steel  and  Iron  Company?  Lid  you  send  your  man  there?  A.  No, 
sir ;  I  sent  no  man  there. 

Q.    Did  they  make  these  things  for  you  by  contract?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  Phoenix  Company  worked  by  contract?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
bought  the  beams  from  them  and  made  the  specification. 

Q  (By  the  Chairman  )  Now,  are  you  quite  sure,  Mr.  Hewins, 
these  hangers  came  from  the  Trenton  Iron  Works?  What  was  your 
object  in  going  to  the  Phoenix  Company  ?  A.  Because  they  had  facil- 
ities for  die-forging. 


APPENDIX.  369 

Q.   Was  there  any  die-forging  in  these  hangers ?     A.    No. 

Q.  Then  did  you  get  these  from  the  Phoenix  Company  ?  A.  The 
iron  may  have  come  from  the  Phoenix  but  was  forged  at  Trenton. 

Q.   They  were  not  made  at  the  Phoenix  Works ?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Pctxam.)  They  had  no  dies  suitable  for  such  hangers? 
A.    No/ 

Q.  Nobody  had.  that  you  knew  of?  A.  I  did  not  succeed  in  find- 
ing them  ;  if  I  had,  I  should  have  had  them  die-forged.  I  tried  to 
do  so. 

Adjourned  until  Saturday,  April  2,  at  10  a.m. 


T  W  E  L  F  T  II    DAY. 

Saturday,  April  2,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  10.30. 

Testimony  of  Edward  S.  Piiii.drick. 

Q.    (By  Mr.  Putnam.)     Your  residence?     A.    In  Brookline. 

Q.    What  is  your  occupation?     A.    Civil  engineer. 

Q.    How  long  have  you  been  in  business?     A.    Forty  years. 

Q.  Have  you  given  any  special  attention  to  the  subject  of  bridge 
building?     A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  fur  the  lust  thirty  years. 

Q.  Have  you  given  any  special  attention  to  the  subject  of  railroad 
engineering?     A.    Yes  :  more  to  that  than  to  any  other  department. 

Q.  For  how  many  years  have  you  been  practically  engaged  in  rail- 
road engineering?  A.  Well,  all  the  lime,  more  or  less,  although  I 
have  had  other  practice  at  the  same  time. 

Q.    That  is,  during  the  whole  forty  years  of  your  professional  life? 
A.    Yes,  sir.     There  was  a  period  during  the  war  when  I  was 
in  the  government  service,  when  I  was  nut  engineering. 

Q.  state  what  your  training  and  experience  on  the  subject  of 
bridges  has  been.  A.  I  began  to  make  a  study  of  iron  bridj 
1853.  It  was  when  they  were  first  introduced,  I  think,  in  America.  I 
thought  I  could  foresee  their  need  from  the  inefficiency  of  wooden 
bridges,  and  at  different  intervals,  when  I  was  not  otherwise  employed, 
I  went  to  see  the  principal  iron  bridges  in  America  which  were  then 
on  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad,  built  by  Mr.  Latrobe.  Those  are 
principally  of  the  Fink  &  Bollman  type  of  skeleton  tmss.     About 

that  time  one  of  that  class  of  trusses  came  to  pi< ^.  went  to  wreck, 

under  a  train  at  Zanesville,  Ohio.     I  did  not  go  on  the  ground,  but  I 


370  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

followed  it,  and  got  all  the  information  I  could  about  it,  and  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  I  did  not  want  to  stud}'  that  kind  of  bridge  for 
the  sort  of  practice  which  I  should  like  to  be  engaged  in  in  New  Eng- 
land. I  found  that  that  was  the  only  kind  which  had  been  developed 
in  America,  and  I  went  to  Europe  to  see  what  the  practice  was  there, 
and  spent  a  year  studying  their  practice,  went  through  some  of  the 
largest  shops,  and  visited  a  large  number  of  their  largest  public  works. 
On  ray  return  to  this  country  in  1860  I  began  to  design  iron  bridges, 
and  built  the  first  one  from  my  own  desigu  in  18G0,  and  have  been  at 
it  more  or  less  ever  since. 

Q.  Where  was  that?  A.  It  was  on  the  Boston  &  Worcester 
Railroad,  about  five  miles  from  here. 

Q.  At  Brighton?  A.  Just  beyond  Brighton  station.  It  was  the 
only  truss  bridge  which  the  Boston  &  Worcester  road  had.  I  was 
then  in  their  employ,  in  charge  of  their  outside  repairs,  track  and 
bridges.  I  rebuilt  all  their  little  bridges  from  here  to  Worcester. 
That  was  the  onl}-  truss  bridge  on  the  road. 

Q.  What  was  it  before,  —  a  wooden  truss?  A.  It  was  a  wooden 
Pratt  truss,  about  100  feet  span. 

Q.  Skew?  A.  Yes.  It  was  probably  almost  exactly  like  this. 
It  was  a  crossing  as  oblique  as  that  is. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  bridge  did  you  build  there  in  1860?  A.  I 
built  an  iron-plate  girder  bridge,  which  is  still  in  use. 

Q.  Is  it  strictly  a  truss?  You  spoke  of  it  as  a  truss.  A.  It  was 
a  Pratt  truss  before.  I  built  a  plate-girder  bridge,  98  feet  in  length, 
which  is  still  in  service. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  built  any  truss  bridges?  A.  Oh,  yes  ;  I  have 
built  nearly  a  hundred  of  them  siuce,  — iron  trusses. 

Q.  Where  have  you  built  them  ?  A.  In  every  State  in  New  Eng- 
land, I  think,  and  in  eastern  New  York,  too,  — scattered  all  about. 

Q.  Various  patterns  of  truss?  A.  Well,  various  sizes  and  shapes, 
to  meet  the  circumstances  of  each  case.  I  have  generall}'  adopted 
the  riveted  style  of  structure  for  the  short  spans.  I  think  that  is  the 
only  proper  method  for  short  railroad  spans. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  short  spans?  A.  Up  to  100  feet,  if  at  right 
angles,  and  perhaps  a  little  above  that  if  oblique  ;  and  for  the  floor 
system  I  think  all  railroad  bridges  should  be  riveted, — the  floor, 
cross  beams  and  track  stringers,  no  matter  what  the  trusses  may  be. 
That  has  been  my  practice. 

Q.  How  do  you  distinguish  riveted  work  from  ordinary  truss  work? 
A.  It  is  merely  in  the  method  of  attachment  of  the  parts.  The 
European  riveted  work  is  quite  different  from  American  riveted,  in 
one  respect :  the  European  lattice  bridge  resembles  more  our  old 
plank  lattice,  which  we  used  for  road  bridges  all  over  the  country 


APPENDIX.  371 

thirty  or  forty  years  ago,  some  of  which  are  still  In  existence,  with 
numerous  intersections,  —  close  lattices,  pinned  together  at  every 
intersection.  The  American  riveted  iron  bridges  have  fewer  intersec- 
tions, so  that  the  strains  are  more  definite,  readily  computable,  and 
more  simple  in  construction. 

Q.  And  alike,  I  suppose?  A.  Well,  not  necessarily  alike;  that 
depends  upon  the  amount  of  load  to  be  carried. 

Q.  Is  not  the  material  more  distributed  on  the  lines  of  strain  ? 
A.  It  can  b'3  more  definitely  distributed  by  the  American  method, 
because  there  are  fewer  intersections,  and  the  load  on  the  floor  is 
transmitted  t  >  the  truss  at  definite  points  ;  and  in  the  American  sys- 
tem the  lattice  members  are  brought  to  bear  upon  these  same  points, 
•which  we  call  panel  points.  In  the  European  method  the  loads  are 
not  so  well  distributed  upon  the  truss  from  the  floor,  I  think,  as  in  the 
American.  In  their  larger  structures  in  Europe  they  follow  the  same 
idea  however,  for  long  spans. 

Q.  Have  you  used  any  of  the  familiar  types  of  truss,  the  Pratt 
truss,  the  Howe  truss,  and  others  which  have  been  spoken  of  here? 
A.  The  Howe  truss  has  never  been  built  in  iron,  except  in  the 
Ashtabula  1 -ridge,  I  believe;  but  I  have  used  several  kinds  of  truss 
in  the  larger  spans  besides  the  riveted  structures  in  the  truss  beams 
themselves,  but  I  have  always  had  the  floor  system  riveted. 

Q.  But  you  have  built  bridges  in  which  the  truss  itself  was  not 
riveted  and  was  in  separate  parts,  like  this  one  here?  A.  Yes;  1 
built  a  bridge  at  Haverhill  some  ten  years  ago,  constructed  by  the 
Phceuixville  Iron  Works,  and  the  general  outline  of  the  truss  is  simi- 
lar to  this  Parker  truss.  The  Linville  truss,  they  call  it;  that  was 
the  name  of  the  inventor.  In  that  bridge,  which  is  the  only  bridge 
of  the  kind  I  ever  had  to  do  with,  I  used  the  cast-iron  joint  blocks  for 
the  sake  of  cheapness,  because  the  trains  were  limited  to  a  walking 
pace  ;  it  was  near  the  Haverhill  station,  where  they  were  obliged  to 
stop.  The  track  laid  on  the  lower  chords,  and  there  was  no  dangei 
of  disturbing  the  upper  chords  by  the  contact  of  trains.  There  were 
six  plate-iron  track  stringers  applied  to  the  two  tracks.  I  have  never 
used  less  than  six  in  the  last  ten  years  in  double-track  bridges. 

Q.    How  many  trusses?     A.    Two  trusses,  one  on  each  side. 

Q.  Those,  you  say,  were  of  the  pattern  called  the  Linville  truss? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  similar  to  the  Parker  truss  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Bussey  bridge,  in  its  general  outline. 

Q.  But,  I  understand  you,  with  its  top  chord  not  riveted  together': 
A.  The  top  chord  was  made  of  Phumixville  iron  cylinders,  and  the 
vertical  struts  were  also  Pboenixville  iron  cylinders,  similar  to  what 
Mr.  Hewins  used  in  this  western  truss,  coupled  on  east-iron  joint 
blocks. 


372  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  Then,  the  construction  of  the  top  chord  is  more  similar  to  that 
in  Mr.  Ilewins'  truss  than  the  Pratt?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  the  system  of  the  panels  is  like  the  Parker  truss,  I  sup- 
pose?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  generally  you  have  built  riveted  work, 
and  have  avoided  the  ordinary  form?  A.  That  was  simply  where  I 
was  connected  with  shorter  span  bridges.  If  I  had  been  building 
longer  spans,  I  should  not  have  built  riveted  trusses  ;  but  I  should 
have  built  riveted  floors  in  all  cases. 

Q.  But  for  long  spans  you  consider  the  ordinary  form  of  truss 
suitable?  A.  The  American  form,  I  should  say  ;  and  there  is  a  great 
variety  of  them.  But  the  method  generally  used  in  America  is  to  use 
pins  and  eyes  in  connecting  the  tension  members,  and  that,  I  think, 
is  perfectly  admissible  and  proper,  and  the  best  way  for  long-span 
trusses  with  tension  members. 

Q.  And  the  compression  members?  A.  I  think  the  compression 
members  ought  to  be  made  riveted,  similar  to  that  in  the  Parker  truss 
on  the  east  side  of  this  bridge. 

Q.  The  Parker  truss  on  the  east  side  of  this  bridge  was  a  riveted 
truss  as  to  all  its  compression  members,  wasn't  it?  A.  Not  the 
posts  ;  the  posts  were  rolled  beams  ;  the  top  chords  were  riveted,  an 
inverted  trough. 

Q.  Outside  of  your  practice,  bridge  building  in  the  United  States 
has  been  largely  the  ordinar}'  truss,  even  on  short  spans,  has  it  not? 
A.  It  was  until  within  ten  or  fifteen  years  ;  but  I  think  about  1870 
they  found  that  the  short  span,  built  with  pin-and-link  connection 
did  not  stand,  that  they  were  all  tumbling  to  pieces,  and  nearly  all 
bridge  builders  abandoned  them  about  that  time. 

Q.  That  was  the  time  they  began  to  abandon  them?  A.  They 
abandoned  their  construction  ;  but  all  bridges  of  that  kind  were  not 
abandoned,  of  course, —  some  wore  out  and  tome  tumbled  down. 

(,>.  They  all  began  to  abandon  them  at  that  time,  didn't  they?  A. 
I  don't  know  about  that,  because  I  was  connected  with  only  one  or 
two  shops. 

<v>.  Wherever  the}7  came  under  your  influence,  they  abandoned 
them,  I  suppose?     A.    That  did  not  extend  far. 

Q.  You  have  examined  this  Bussey  bridge?  A.  I  never  exam- 
ined it  before  its  fall. 

(,».  Since  the  accident?  A.  Since  the  accident  I  have.  I  would 
Bay,  however,  that  I  was  familiar  with  it  before  its  reconstruction  in 
1876.  I  knew  the  Parker  truss  quite  familiarly.  I  was  requested  by 
Mr.  Parker  himself,  about  1872,  perhaps,  to  inspect  it  as  a  sample  of 
his  workmanship  ;  he  wanted  to  get  some  other  work  through  me.  I 
went  out  there  and  made  a  careful  study  of  it.     I  have  never  seen  it 


APPENDIX.  373 

since  until  it  fell,  except  to   ride  over   it  and   see   it  from   the   cat 
windows. 

Q.  At  that  time  there  was  a  Parker  truss  on  the  west  side  and  a 
Pratt  truss  on  the  east  side?  A.  A  Pratt  truss  on  the  east  side,  if  I 
remember  right ;  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.    It  was  an  old  wooden  truss,  probably?     A.    Yes,  sir. 
Q.    Does  the  fact  of  the  two  trusses  being  of  different  kinds  neces- 
sarily make  the  bridge  weak?     A.    In  this  cast-? 

Q.   In    any   case.     A.    I   think  it  might  be   guarded    against    by 
proper  care,  if   the  trusses  were   adapted   to  one   another  in    panel 
length,  but  it  is  a  very  unusual  thing  ;   I  don't  think  I  ever  saw  a  i 
like  it  before.     It  is  entirely  uncalled  for. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  notice  of  it  at  the  time  you  went  and  saw  the 
bridge  in  1872?  A.  That  is  the  time  when  they  had  a  wooden  truss. 
Of  course  I  saw  that  one  was  wooden  and  the  other  was  iron.  Mr. 
Parker  said  he  put  in  the  iron  one  as  a  sample,  and  he  hoped  to  get 
an  opportunity  to  renew  the  other  one. 

Q.  Since  the  accident  you  have  examined  the  remains  of  the 
bridge?  A.  I  examined  the  wreck;  I  was  there  on  Monday  after- 
noon. From  curiosity.  I  drove  over  from  my  house,  from  profes- 
sional interest  in  the  matter  ;  but  the  police  prevented  me  from  mak- 
ing any  inspection  of  the  work.  I  finally  got  up  on  the  embankment 
on  the  Pvoslindale  side,  outside  of  their  lines,  and  by  a  little  innocent 
strategy  got  through  their  lines  as  far  as  the  abutment,  so  that  I 
looked  down  upon  the  wreck  to  study  it,  which  I  did  for  an  hour, 
nearly.     I  could  not  get  down  on  the  street. 

Q.  AYhen  did  you  get  there?  A.  The  next  morning  I  went  out.  at 
your  recpiest  and  on  behalf  of  the  corporation,  to  get  at  the  facts.  It' 
it  is  proper,  I  will  say  here,  for  the  information  of  the  commissioners, 
that  I  was  requested  by  Mr.  Putnam  to  examine  the  wreck  and  en- 
deavor to  ascertain  all  the  facts  of  the  cause  of  the  accident,  which  I 
have  done  as  far  as  possible. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  the  results  of  your  examina- 
tion and  the  methods  of  it?  A.  Well,  after  getting  a  general  glance 
of  the  wreck,  by  which  I  could  see  what  the  bridge  had  been  in  its 
principal  characteristics,  I  began  to  look  for  signs  of  derailment.  I 
saw  that  the  bridge  would  be  likely  to  fall  very  soon  after  derailment 
upon  it,  from  its  general  character;  but  I  found  no  such  signs  on  the 
further  side  of  the  bridge.  I  looked,  the  next  day,  carefully  for  signs 
of  derailment  on  the  sleepers,  as  far  as  they  were  visible,  which  wi  s 
as  far  this  way  as  the  middle  of  the  bridge  ;  but  I  found  no  signs  of 
derailment  on  any  of  those  sleepers  :ts  far  as  the  seventh  ear  of  the 
train,  which  was  about  as  far  as  I  could  trace  them.  My  attention 
was  then  directed  to  the  principal  members  of  the  truss.     I  saw  from 


374  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

the  position  of  the  wreck  that  the  eastern  truss  had  been  pulled  over 
sldewise,  which  did  not  indicate  any  weakness  ;  and  I  saw  from  the 
position  of  the  wrecked  bridge  and  train,  at  once,  that  the  trouble 
probably  originated  near  this  end  of  the  bridge;  otherwise  the  train 
could  not  have  got  as  far  as  it  did.  I  looked  at  the  principal  members 
of  the  truss,  and  I  found  that  the  tension  members,  as  far  as  the}' were 
visible,  were  perfect,  except  such  crooks  as  might  be  attributed  to  the 
fall. 

Q.  State  here,  if  you  please,  what  was  the  quality  of  those  tension 
members?     A.    They  appeared  to  be  first-class  work. 

Q.  As  to  material,  as  well  as  workmanship?  A.  As  to  material 
and  as  to  workmanship.  I  have  not  made  any  computations,  but  I 
have  built  so  many  bridges  of  that  length  that  I  can  tell  at  a  glance 
whether  they  are  subject  to  suspicion,  and  those  did  not  appear  so. 

Q.  Then  you  would  judge  that  that  truss,  excepting  for  objections 
to  its  design,  was  well  constructed  and  sufficiently  strong  as  to  mate- 
rial? A.  As  far  as  I  could  see  then,  it  appeared  to  be  good  work- 
manship. I  looked  into  the  compression  members,  which  next 
attracted  my  attention.  It  was  some  time  before  I  could  see  the 
characteristics  of  the  structure  ;  that  is,  how  the  floor  was  attached 
to  the  bridge.  I  found  that  the  floor  was  hung  to  this  western  truss, 
and  rested  on  top  of  the  eastern  one  ;  and  my  attention  was  drawn 
by  some  one  —  I  have  forgotten  who  now ;  it  may  have  been  Mr. 
Doane,  whow  as  with  me  —  to  the  fact  that  the  hangers  at  the  north- 
ern end  were  broken.  I  first  happened  to  see  the  hangers  at  the 
southern  end,  which  were  not  broken  ;  they  were  still  in  the  castings, 
coupled  by  their  pins,  but  so  covered  up  with  the  castings  that  I 
could  not  get  much  idea  of  their  shape. 

Q.  Were  they  also  coupled  to  the  floor  beams  at  that  time?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  I  could  not  see  much  of  them,  except  that  there  were  such 
castings  there.  I  went  to  the  eastern  side  of  the  train  and  looked  at 
the  other  hangers.  I  found  those  were  broken.  1  found  the  joint 
block  that  belonged  to  the  northern  end  of  the  horizontal  part  of  the 
top  chord  of  the  western  truss  lying  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  train, 
with  the  links  in  it;  those  suspension  links  to  which  the  floor  had 
been  hung.  The  lower  ends  of  those  links  were  missing  ;  I  could  not 
find  them.  I  made  inquiiy,  and  Professor  Vose  told  me  afterwards 
that  he  thought  they  had  been  cribbed,  carried  off  by  somebody  ;  but 
the  ends  that  were  left  there,  the  upper  ends,  were  still  in  the  joint 
block.  I  could  not  see  their  fractured  ends  very  perfectly.  They 
were  down  close  to  the  ground  in  the  mud.  One  of  them  had  actually 
fallen  into  the  mud,  apparently,  and  was  daubed  with  it.  It  was  only 
by  getting  my  head  down  into  the  mud  that  I  could  see  the  fractures 
at  all.     I  did  not  satisfy  myself  on  that  point.     For  that  reason  I 


APPENDIX.  375 

asked  to  have  them  preserved,  and  hrought  .into  the  office.      A 

as  I  saw  them  in  the  oflice  I  detected  the  peculiar  form,  which  I  had 

not  seen  on  the  ground. 

Q.  That  is,  the  eccentricity?  A.  Yes;  they  were  all  hrought  in. 
I  had  an  opportunity  to  see  them  here  for  the  first  time  about  the 
middle  of  the  week,  I  think  it  was,  and  as  soon  as  I  found  that  form 
and  examined  the  nature  of  the  fracture  of  the  broken  ends,  I  con- 
cluded that  those  broken  ones  had  been  gradually  breaking  for  a  term 
of  years  ;  I  could  not  tell  how  long. 

Q.  You  judged  that  from  their  form?  A.  From  the  nature  of  the 
fracture  and  the  form.  The  nature  of  the  fracture  showed  that  they 
had  been  a  long  time  in  being  broken,  in  my  opinion,  and  the  form 
would  justify  such  a  theory. 

Q.  Explain  that,  please?  A.  Well,  because  the  line  of  tension 
between  the  centres  of  the  pins  did  not  go  through  the  centre  of  the 
metal,  came  outside  of  the  bar  entirely,  and  as  soon  as  the  tension 
was  applied,  that  part  of  the  member  which  is  outside  of  the 
direct  line  of  tension  would  endeavor  to  get  into  it,  just  as  a  crooked 
rope  will  endeavor  to  turn  towards  the  line  of  tension  when  you  pull 
at  both  ends.  That  will  create  a  bending  strain  in  the  shaft  of  the 
bar  and  in  the  end  of  the  link. 

Q.  Would  it  have  a  tendency  to  start  the  weld  by  which  the  rings 
were  formed?  A.  Yes,  it  would  tend  to  open  them;  actually  had 
done  so,  apparently,  to  a  certain  extent. 

Q.  From  what  you  see  here  3-ou  would  not  judge  that  those  welds 
had  always  had  the  open  appearance  they  have  now?  A.  No;  I 
think  the}'  were  gradually  opened  by  that  transverse  tearing  motion. 
After  arriving  at  these  conclusions,  from  such  observations  as  I  could 
make  here,  I  made  some  computations  as  to  what  the  effect  of  the 
actual  loads  would  be  on  those  links.  I  found  that  the  passage  of 
the  engine  which  they  ran  that  morning,  the  -'Torres,*'  I  think  it 
was,  would  bring  a  strain  on  those  links  of  about  57,000  pounds,  in- 
cluding the  dead  had  of  the  floor.  Heavier  engines  would  produce 
more  strain.  That  strain  I  found  would  bring,  in  consequence  of  the 
peculiar  form  of  these  links,  a  stress  upon  one  side  of  the  metal 
beyond  its  limit  of  elasticity,  in  all  probability.  Of  course  the  actual 
limit  of  elasticity  of  any  bar  of  iron  is  not  definitely  known  until  you 
try  it,  but  the  probable  limit  of  elasticity  of  the  bar  I  put  at  25,000  or 
30,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch  ;  not  more  than  that,  perha] 

I  found  the  probable  strains  that  were  likely  to  occur  upoi e  side  .»!' 

the  metal,  whenever  an  engine  of  that  weight  passed,  would  probably 
come  up  to  the  elastic  limit.  That  at  once  condemns  the  bar.  It 
will  begin  to  break,  —  it  will  not  snap  olf  at  once,  —  because  the 
tension  was  concentrated  on  one  side  of  it.     A  transverse  strain  on 


376  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

the  bar  creates  a  tension  on  one  side,  and  the  total  load  on  the  bar 
would,  if  it  were  straight,  distribute  the  tension  throughout.  With 
every  effort  that  is  made  to  get  into  line  there  is  a  transverse  strain 
which  concentrates  the  tensile  strain  upon  some  part  of  the  bar,  some 
of  the  fibres  near  the  edge.  That  would  give  a  strain  beyond  the 
elastic  limit  whenever  any  heavy  engine  passed.  In  all  probability, 
whenever  an  engine  gave  a  lurch,  that  would  bring  the  whole  force  on 
that  side.  It  might  not  occur  every  time  an  engine  went  over,  but  it 
nii.ht  occur  once  or  twice  a  week.  In  that  way  the  fibres  would 
begin  to  yield  slowly,  month  after  month,  year  after  year,  as  they 
appear  to  have  actually  done  from  the  different  ages  of  the  different 
parts  of  the  fracture.  There  was  still  enough  metal  left  in  one  of 
those  liuks  to  hold  an  ordinary  train,  under  some  circumstances, 
perhaps  ;  but  an  engine  never  passes  over  a  bridge  twice  alike.  That 
is,  although  it  may  affect  the  truss  in  the  same  way  at  different  times, 
it  cannot  affect  the  floor  S3'stem  twice  alike  in  any  two  passages,  if  at 
any  speed.  One  appeared  to  be  nearly  whole  until  the  recent  break, 
and  the  other  was  nearly  gone.  There  was  perhaps  about  the  value 
of  one  eutiie  hanger  left  that  Monday  morning  before  the  train  came 
there. 

Q.  Would  that  have  been  enough  to  support  a  train?  A.  Some- 
times it  would  have  supported  it  and  sometimes  it  would  not.  It 
would  depend  upon  the  way  the  engine  rolled  on  its  springs  and  the 
way  the  cylinders  happened  to  act  at  that  particular  point. 

Q.  If  the  strain  had  been  direct,  do  you  mean  there  would  have 
been  enough  iron  to  support  the  load  ?  A.  Yes  ;  perhaps  not  safely, 
but  it  might  have  supported  it  a  good  many  years  longer.  Iron  fails 
when  it  is  brought  anywhere  near  its  elastic  limit  by  repeated  trials. 
That  is,  it  is  sure  to  fail  after  a  certain  number  of  trials  ;  we  do  not 
know  how  many.  It  will  carry  a  heavy  load  one  day,  and  a  lighter 
load  applied  continuously,  day  after  day,  may  break  it  down.  It 
might  carry  a  weight  of  ten  tons  one  day,  where  five  tons  applied 
day  after  day  would  break  it  down  in  five  years. 

Q.  Then,  any  series  of  tests  by  putting  heavy  loads  on  the  bridge 
would  not  have  been  likely  to  have  prevented  such  a  disaster  as  this? 
A.  I  think  a  heavy  load  applied  a  week  before  might  have  broken  it 
down  ;  perhaps  a  year  before.  It  is  impossible  to  tell.  It  is  a  pecu- 
liar case.  If  it  had  not  broken  it  clown  we  should  not  have  been 
much  wiser. 

Q.  And  it  would  not  have  been  very  likely  to  have  broken  it  down 
if  applied  six  months  before  this  time,  would  it?  A.  I  cannot  judge 
now,  for  I  cannot  tell  how  it  looked  six  months  before. 

Q.  I  mean  looking  at  it  as  it  is  now?  A.  There  is  no  method  by 
which  I  can  form  an  opinion  of  its  condition  six  months  ago. 


APPENDIX.  377 

Q.  The  question  I  meant  to  put  was,  whether  a  heavy  load  applied 
in  the  way  in  which  a  test  is  ordinarily  made,  by  putting  locomotives 
and  tenders  on  a  bridge,  might  not  have  been  borne  with  safety,  when 
a  moving  train  might  make  such  blows  as  would  tear  away  the  links? 
A.  A  constant  succession  of  moving  trains  might ;  not  the  first  one, 
perhaps. 

Q.  Then,  my  question  was,  whether  the  testing  of  this  bridge  by 
simply  putting  an  extra  heavy  load  upon  it  would  necessarily  have 
carried  away  these  links  before  this  accident?  A.  Well,  it  depends, 
of  course,  upon  how  heavy  a  load  you  put  on.  They  might  have 
been  broken,  I  have  no  doubt,  two  days  before  the  accident,  by  put- 
ting on  twice  as  much  load  as  the  daily  practice  applied. 

Q.  Two  locomotives  with  their  tenders  is  about  as  severe  a  test  as 
could  be  applied  to  that  bridge,  is  it  not?  A.  Two  locomotives  and 
tenders  yoked  together  would  make  a  heavier  load  on  that  bridge  than 
one.  Of  course  it  depends  upon  the  weight  of  the  locomotive  alto- 
gether, and  the  concentration  of  load  upon  its  driving  wheels. 

Q.  Then  the  running  over  the  bridge  of  one  of  those  heavy  double- 
ender  fifty-two  ton  locomotives  is  about  as  severe  a  test  as  it  could 
possibly  have  had,  is  it  not?  A.  Yes;  except  for  the  element  of 
time.     If  repeated  every  clay  it  would  constitute  a  test. 

Q.  You  heard  the  testimony  that  they  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
running  those  heavy  fifty-two  ton  locomotives  over  the  bridge,  did 
you  not?  A.  No;  I  did  not  hear  that.  That  would  constitute  a 
test,  but  it  would  prove  nothing  at  all.  It  would  be  a  test  for  the 
moment,  that  is  all. 

Q.  Whether  or  not,  it  would  be  as  good  a  test  as  could  be  applied  ? 
A.    Xo  ;  I  don't  think  it  would. 

Q.  What  better  test  could  there  be?  A.  An  examination  of  every 
bar  of  iron  in  the  bridge. 

Q.  I  mean,  the  best  that  could  be  applied  after  the  bridge  is  built? 
A.  I  don't  think  any  load  test  amounts  to  anything  except  to  satisfy 
public  clamor  for  a  while. 

Q.  The  Railroad  Commissioners  some  years  ago  recommended  a 
test  of  this  bridge,  and  that  it  should  be  repeated  at  intervals  of  six 
months  or  a  year.  It  was  tested  immediately  by  a  load.  I  ask  you 
whether  a  repetition  of  that  test  from  six  months  to  six  months,  or 
from  year' to  year,  would  be  any  better  test  than  running  over  that 
bridge  with  a  fifty- two  ton  locomotive  from  time  to  time?  A.  It 
would  depend  upon  how  heavy  a  load  had  been  placed  upon  it  when 
they  made  those  special  tests. 

Q.  Could  they  make  any  heavier  load?  A.  They  could  have  piled 
up  a  load  of  rails  on  the  floor,  and  then  put  a  locomotive  on  the 
bridge  also. 


378  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  But  no  test  that  could  be  made  with  locomotives  would  be  more 
satisfactory  than  the  running  of  one  of  those  double-enders  over 
the  bridge?  No;  two  engines  could  not  be  got  on  the  bridge 
together.  Therefore,  b}T  yoking  two  locomotives  together  3-011  do  not 
strain  the  bridge  any  more. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  What  is  the  length  of  an  engine?  A. 
About  fifty  feet,  with  the  tender.  Some  are  longer  than  that,  —  sixty 
feet.  Most  of  them  will  turn  on  a  fifty-foot  turn-table,  but  they  will 
hang  over  the  ends. 

Q.  What  was  the  length  of  the  bridge?  A.  The  bridge  was  104  feet. 
What  I  meant  all  the  time  was  these  floor  timbers  and  these  hangers. 
You  could  not  get  two  locomotives  on  these  hangers.  That  was  the 
point  I  had  in  mind.  Of  course  the  tension  members  of  the  trusses 
would  have  been  strained  with  two  locomotives  more  than  with  one  ; 
these  hangers  could  not  have  been.  That  is  the  idea  I  had  in  my 
mind. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Assuming  an  ordinary  locomotive  to 
weigh  from  twenty-nine  to  thirty-two  tons,  which  was  the  weight  of 
the  "  Torrey,"  it  would  be  a  pretty  severe  test  to  run  one  of  the  fifty- 
two  ton  locomotives  over  that  bridge,  would  it  not?  A.  Well,  it 
would  be  the  severest  test  which  was  likely  to  occur  in  practice. 
That  is  all  I  can  say. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  go  on  and  state  what  results  3-ou  arrived  at  as  to 
the  cause  of  the  accident?  A.  Well,  I  could  not  find  any  circum- 
stantial evidence,  any  parts  of  the  wreck,  which  led  to  any  satisfac- 
tory solution  of  the  problem,  but  the  breaking  of  those  hangers. 
Those  hangers  had  evidently  been,  one  of  them  nearly  broken  off'  and 
the  other  partially  broken  off  before  that  day  by  a  gradual  process  ; 
so  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  were  subject  to  over-straining 
and  growing  daily  weaker.  That  is,  they  were  bound  to  break  sooner 
or  later,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  did  break  then  be- 
cause there  was  not  metal  enough  left  to  leave  any  margin  in  support- 
ing the  daily  traffic.  Moreover,  there  are  the  surrounding  indications  ; 
the  appearance  of  the  wreck,  the  position  of  things,  can  all  be  reason- 
ably explained  by  supposing  those  hangers  to  break  first,  and  by  no 
other  supposition  that  I  have  heard  of  so  reasonably  and  so  probably. 

Q.  If  there  had  been  a  derailment  of  the  first  car  by  some  inde- 
pendent cause  close  to  the  northern  end  of  the  bridge,  would  not  the 
consequences  which  have  followed  have  been  likely  to  follow?  A. 
In  a  general  way.     There  would  have  been  a  wreck. 

Q.  Would  not  the  hangers  have  been  broken  and  would  not  the 
first  three  cars  probably  have  gone  over,  and  the  bridge  have  gone 
down  just  as  it  did?  A.  If  the  hangers  were  so  nearly  broken  as 
they  appeared  to  have  been,  they  might,  perhaps,  have  been  finished 


APPENDIX.  379 

by  some  blow  during  the  collapse,  but  I  do  not  think  that  is  so  prob- 
able. I  do  not  think  there  would  have  been  much  strain  upon  the 
hangers  after  the  truss  was  disabled.  After  the  truss  was  dislocated 
the  strain  upon  the  hangers  would  have  ceased  in  an  instant 

Q.  If  the  truss  had  been  dislocated  by  a  diagonal  blow  tending  to 
the  northwest,  would  not  that  blow  itself  have  been  likely  to  bring  a 
strain  upon  the  hangers  which  would  break  them?  A.  No;  the  top 
of  the  hangers  could  not  move  with  the  end  of  that  casting  except 
directly  outward  in  the  direction  at  right  angles  with  the  rail.  Under 
any  such  blow  as  that  they  would  simply  swing  on  their  lower  links, 
—  be  hinged  there. 

Q.  Would  not  the  outer  corner  of  the  block  have  caught  upon  the 
under  surface  of  the  floor  beam  and  so  made  a  powerful  leverage 
against  the  hangers?  A.  No  ;  I  think  the  motion  by  which  the  truss 
was  dislocated  would  have  been  directly  at  right  angles  with  the 
track  ;  must  have  been. 

Q.  I  mean,  would  not  that  action  of  the  lowrer  surface  of  the  joint 
block  upon  the  upper  surface  of  the  floor  beam  have  prevented  the 
hangers  turning  on  their  pivot?  A.  I  think  the}'  would  both  go  to- 
gether at  first.  There  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  floor  beams  from 
yielding  endwise. 

Q.  You  said  it  would  turn  on  a  pivot?  A.  After  it  was  out  it 
would.     As  soon  as  the  truss  was  dislocated  it  would,  not  before. 

Q.  Can  you  explain  the  getting  over  of  the  three  cars  upon  the 
theory  that  the  first  thing  to  go  was  the  hangers?  A.  I  think  it  is 
quite  probable  they  were  sustained  by  the  falling  wreck.  There  were 
a  good  man}'  bars  of  iron  which  were  competent  to  hold  the  cars  up 
for  a  few  seconds,  one  car  at  a  time,  each  one  falling  lower  in  succes- 
sion and  finally  getting  so  low  that  the  fourth  car  could  not  mount  the 
wall.  In  the  first  place, there  were  the  track  stringers  themselves  (Pro- 
fessor Swain  drew  your  attention  to  that  point  yesterday),  formed  of 
two  rolled  beams,  bolted  together,  on  top  of  which  was  a  timber,  a 
hard  pine  timber,  bolted  down  and  breaking  joints  with  the  iron 
beams,  having  joints  alternate  with  the  iron  beams,  and  lapping  on  to 
them.  They  appear  to  have  been  pretty  firmly  bolted  together. 
That  would  make  that  top  member  slightly  coherent.  Moreover,  there 
is  a  small  post  which  has  been  referred  to  a  good  many  times  at  that 
point  under  the  floor  beam,  which  would  have  held  something, 
although  it  must  have  failed  very  early  in  the  course  of  events.  But 
then  the  whole  course  of  events  to  which  I  have  been  referring  did 
not  last  over  ten  or  fifteen  seconds,  probably.  Then  there  was  the 
horizontal  bracing  attached  to  the  main  truss  and  passing  diagonally 
across  underneath  the  floor.  That  would  have  held  up  a  little,  though 
not  much  ;  that  is,  it  would  have  served   to  delay  the  fall  somewhat. 


380  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  How  about  the  linking  together  of  the  track  stringers? 
A.  That  would  make  a  continuous  joint,  as  it  were,  while  such  cohe- 
sion lasted.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  cohesion  of  the  bottom 
members  of  the  track  stringers  until  they  were  straightened  out.  It 
would  require  more  than  a  foot  of  fall  to  straighten  them  out. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Explain,  if  you  please,  what  you  mean 
by  the  bottom  members?  A.  The  bottom  members  of  the  track 
stringers. 

(In  illustration,  the  witness  made  a  sketch  :  Supposing  the  support 
at  "  B"  had  been  withdrawn  by  the  breaking  of  these  links,  the  two 
floor  beams  would  drop  ;  the  two  ends  resting  on  that  support  would 
tend  to  drop  at  once,  hinging  upon  the  points  "  A"  and  "  C."  The 
continuity  of  the  lower  member  passing  round  through  "  A,"  "  B  " 
and  "  E,"  and  across  the  bottom  to  "  C,"  being  unbroken,  that  would 
form  a  tension  member  to  support  any  weight  on  the  chain  until  the 
point  "B"  had  fallen  to  the  level  of  "D"  and  "  E."  Then  the 
chain  would  be  continuous  in  that  way.  These  points  would  be  two 
or  three  feet  further  apart  by  that  time,  when  this  triangle  had 
straightened  out  into  a  straight  line.  Before  it  got  to  that,  either  the 
connection  of  the  upper  members  at  "  B  "  would  have  to  give  way,  or 
the  connection  of  one  straight  beam  with  the  other  would  have  to  give 
way.) 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Was  there  any  secure  connection  between 
the  rolled  beams  which  constituted  the  track  stringers  and  the  block 
which  held  the  pins?  A.  There  may  have  been  a  temporal  connec- 
tion which  served  to  hold  it  for  a  few  seconds,  during  which  period 
the  chain  would  be  along  the  line  of  the  top  members. 

Q.  Then  the  connection  at  that  point  had  probably  given  way  be- 
fore these  were  pulled  out  at  the  other  end?  A.  Yes,  sir.  I  think 
that  dropped  before  the  anchorage  failed. 

Q.  Then  it  dropped  to  the  level  of  '-D"  and  "E"  before  the 
question  came  of  pulling  out  at  the  abutment  or  giving  way  there? 
A.  By  the  time  that  the  point  "  B"  had  fallen  to  the  level  of  "D" 
and  ;'  E"  the  top  member  would  have  been  separated,  with  a  gap  two 
or  three  feet  long  in  it,  over  which  the  wheels  of  the  cars  would  not 
have  passed. 

Q.    Might  they  not  have  jumped  it?     A.    Hardly,  I  think. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  So  that  "B"  did  not  fall  to  the  level  of 
"D"  and  "E"  until  the  cars  had  jumped  over?  A.  I  think  a  car 
bod_y  might  have  been  dragged  or  shoved  over  the  gap. 

Q.  What,  then,  do  you  take  to  have  been  the  course  of  the  occur- 
rences? A.  From  all  that  I  can  gather,  from  the  evidence  I  think 
the  links  broke  under  the  weight  of  the  engine  ;  the  tracks  did  not 
have  time  to  settle  far  enough  while  the  weight  of  the  engine  was  on 


APPENDIX.  381 

the  bridge  to  prevent  the  engine  getting  over,  but  it  did  settle  far 
enough  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  engineer.  He  felt  the  forward 
end  of  the  engine  come  up,  he  said,  against  something  solid  as  he  was 
leaving  the  bridge. 

Q.  What  do  von  take  that  something  solid  to  have  been?  A.  The 
ground;  terra Jirma. 

Q.  You  don't  mean  that  he  actually  struck  the  ground?  A.  I 
mean  the  support  of  the  ground.  He  felt  something  solid  under  the 
foward  part  of  his  engine  when  he  was  sinking  at  the  rear  end.  He 
did  not  perceive  the  sinking,  but  he  felt  the  sensation  of  going  up  in 
getting  on  to  terra  jirma.  That  is,  when  he  struck  terra  Jirma  he 
felt  a  shock  there. 

Q.  What  do  you  take  to  have  torn  off  the  trucks  of  the  first  and 
second  cars?  A.  Well,  the  derailment  occurred,  I  think,  directly 
■when  that  floor  beam  sank. 

Q.  How  do  you  suppose  the  derailment  occurred?  A.  Well,  the 
dropping  of  the  floor  a  single  foot,  and  perhaps  less,  would  derange 
the  alignment  of  the  track,  break  up  the  lateral  braces  and  the  track 
would  get  out  of  line.  Moreover,  it  would  pull  apart  at  that  joint. 
There  was  a  joint  within  five  feet,  so  that  there  was  no  continuity  of 
iron  there  ;  the  rails  would  pull  apart  some  inches,  a  truck  would  get 
in  a  little  obliquely,  and,  being  pushed  ahead  at  the  same  time,  tear 
the  rails  out  of  their  fastenings,  as  very  often  happens  in  cases  of  de- 
railment. 

Q.  What  do  you  infer  from  the  fact  that  half  of  the  eastern  rail 
was  found  up  on  the  bank  ahead  of  the  second  car?  A.  I  think  both 
those  rails  got  entangled  at  their  south  ends  in  the  truck  of  the  sec  »nd 
car  after  its  derailment,  and  that  the  south  ends  of  both  of  those  rails 
were  carried  forward,  and  bent  as  we  found  them,  the  wheels  ripping 
them  up  from  their  fastenings,  and,  as  the  truck  went  along,  it  carried 
the  whole  rail  forward.  I  do  not  think  the  eastern  rail  broke  until 
the  whole  length  of  it  was  torn  up  from  its  fastenings.  It  was  broken 
by  bending,  as  is  evident  from  the  fracture. 

Q.  Half  of  it  fell  into  the  street,  and  the  other  half  was  carried  otr 
by  the  second  car?  A.  That  might  easily  have  occurred.  It  broke 
about  that  time.  Which  way  it  would  fly  depended  upon  the  last 
impulse  that  it  got. 

Q.  What  do  you  suppose  took  off  the  rear  truck  of  the  first  car 
with  so  much  violence?  A.  That  truck  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
much  of  any  disabled,  but  such  dislocation  of  trucks  always  occurs  in 
cases  of  derailment,  when  there  is  a  speed  of  over  six  or  eight  miles 
an  hour;  they  often  fly  out  in  directions  which  cannot  he  fores,.,]]. 
Whenever  a  truck  gets  derailed  and  turns  cornerwise,  its  own  mo- 
mentum, with  that  of  the  cars  that  are  connected  with  it,  st 


382  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

oat,  and  it  follows  the  line  which  its  wheels  happen  to  point,  and 
jumps  in  any  direction  it  happens  to  fanc}\ 

Q.  What  do  3011  suppose  to  have  heen  the  first  portion  of  the  train 
which  was  derailed?  A.  Directly  over  the  last  thirty  feet  of  the 
bridge. 

Q.  I  mean,  what  was  the  first  truck  that  went  off  the  track? 
A.  Probably  the  second  car;  but  I  think  there  was  not  much  delay 
before  those  before  and  behind  it  went  off,  from  the  strain  on  their 
trucks  or  their  couplings,  if  nothing  else.  But  I  think  the  obstacle 
encountered  by  drawing  up  this  rail  was  what  broke  the  coupling  of 
the  engine  and  created  the -telescop  ng,  by  the  momentum  of  the  rear 
cud  of  the  train  which  crowded  into  it  at  the  same  instant.  I  suppose 
at  the  instant  the  derailment  occurred  the  train  had  suffered  no  check. 
The  check  was  produced  there  suddenly  by  that  derailment ;  the 
wheels  wei-e  unable  to  advance,  they  were  choked  by  the  ends  of 
those  rails  and  tore  the  rails  up,  which  required  great  force.  That  is 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  telescoping  on  the  track  and  for  the 
uncoupling  of  the  engine. 

Q.  That  would  reduce  the  speed  of  the  cars  very  considerabby, 
would  it  not?    A.    Certainly,  it  would  reduce  the  speed  of  all  of  them. 

Q.  So  that  the  number  of  seconds  required  to  get  those  three  cars 
over  this  gap  cannot  be  accurately  estimated?  A.  Could  not  be 
computed  at  the  full  speed  of  the  train  as  it  was  before  the  accident. 

Q.  Assuming  the  speed  of  the  train  before  the  accident  to  have 
been  twenty  feet  a  second,  what  should  you  take  to  be  the  average 
speed  at  which  those  three  cars  went  over,  taking  into  account  the 
check  caused  by  the  derailment  ?  A.  It  is  impossible  to  form  much 
of  an  opinion  about  it,  sir.     It  is  mere  guess-work. 

Q.  Still,  assuming  the  speed  before  the  derailment  to  have  been 
such  that  it  would  have  required  seven  and  a  half  seconds  to  get  the 
three  cars  over  that  space,  it  would  be  safe  to  saj-  that  it  would 
require  fifteen  seconds,  having  in  view  the  check,  would  it  not?  A.  I 
think  it  might  take  fifteen  seconds,  assuming  that  the  speed  was  only 
fifteen  miles  an  hour  in  the  first  place.  While  on  that  subject  I  would 
like  to  say  that  I  think  the  evidence  of  the  train  men  can  never  be 
relied  upon  in  such  cases  very  definitely  unless  the}-  have  taken  defi- 
nite observations  of  the  speed,  unless  some  other  reason  had  occurred 
to  fix  their  attention  on  the  speed  directly  before  such  an  occurrence. 

Q.  The  fact  that  the  passengers  sa}'  that  there  was  no  unusual 
speed,  —  what  should  you  think  of  that?  A.  Well,  I  should  not 
place  much  dependence  upon  that,  because  I  do  not  believe  passengers 
are  always  thinking  about  it,  unless  something  occurs  to  attract  their 
attention. 

Q.    If,  however,  those  who  were  thinking  of  it  say  that  they  noticed 


APPENDIX.  3S3 

no  unusual  speed,  —  what  weight  should  you  attribute  to  that?  A. 
Well,  I  never  place  much  weight  upon  passengers'  estimates  of  speed, 
I  have  found  them  so  wild  when  they  have  given  a  judgment. 

Q.  I  only  speak  of  their  judgment  as  to  comparative  speed.  Sup- 
pose they  say  that  in  their  judgment  they  were  going  no  faster  than 
usual,  what  should  3-011  say?  A.  I  should  say  that  no  passengers  on 
that  line  or  any  other  such  line  have  any  means  of  judging  within  fifty 
per  cent,  of  the  speed  they  are  running  one  day  as  compared  with 
another,  when  the  track  is  in  good  condition  and  the  rolling  stock  in 
good  condition. 

Q.  You  think  the  difficulty  in  making  a  comparison  between  one 
day  and  another  is  as  great  as  the  difficulty  in  comparing  one  rate  of 
speed  with  another?  A.  Unless  the  track  is  pretty  seriously  out  of 
order.     On  a  rough  track  they  can  judge  of  it,  not  otherwise. 

Q.  Are  there  any  circumstances  aside  from  the  testimony  which 
will  enable  you  to  form  any  judgment  as  to  the  rate  of  speed? 
A.  Well,  I  don't  think  those  cars  could  have  been  telescoped  in  that 
way  without  a  speed  as  great  as  fifteen  miles  an  hour.  My  impres- 
sion is  it  was  rather  more. 

Q.  At  the  moment  the  cars  were  telescoped  there  had  been  a  de- 
pression of  the  forward  end  of  the  train  which  would  increase  some- 
what the  momentum  of  the  cars  behind,  would  it  not?  A.  No  ;  that 
would  form  an  obstacle.  The  first  effect  would  appear  in  the  obstacle. 
There  would  not  be  time  enough  for  an  increase  in  the  momentum. 
The  first  effect  would  appear  in  retardation. 

Q.  The  slope  of  the  southern  fifty  feet  of  the  bridge  would  not  be 
enough  to  increase  the  speed  at  all?  A.  No,  sir  ;  that  would  be  can- 
celled by  the  next  fifty  feet  sloping  upward. 

Q.  The  force  of  the  telescoping  would  be  helped  by  the  next  fifty 
feet  distance  sloping  upwards,  would  it  not?  A.  It  wras  too  small  a 
distance.  There  was  only  one  pair  of  wheels  on  it.  It  would  not 
effect  much. 

Q.  Have  j'ou  made  any  computation  as  to  the  force  required  to 
drag  those  cars  the  distance  they  were  dragged  after  the  telescoping? 
A.    I  have  no  means  of  computing  that. 

Q.  It  is  all  guess-work,  is  it?  A.  It  is  all  guess-work.  We  do 
not  know  what  the  resistance  was. 

Q.  Was  there,  in  your  judgment,  any  fault  in  this  bridge  which 
contributed  in  any  way  (as  a  cause,  I  mean)  to  this  accident,  except- 
ing the  bad  design  of  those  hangers?  A.  Only  in  a  degree  ;  a  slight 
modification,  perhaps. 

Q.  I  say,  as  a  cause?  A.  No;  as  a  cause,  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  any  other. 


384  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

Q.  The  material  was  good,  as  I  understand  3*011?  A.  I  cannot 
say  it  was  good. 

Q.  Not  of  the  hangers,  but  of  the  bridge?  A.  As  far  as  I  can 
judge  it  was  good  enough. 

Q.  As  to  the  work,  should  3*011  judge  that  it  was  of  excelleut 
quality.  A.  As  workmanship,  I  should.  I  cannot  judge  of  the 
tenacity  of  the  iron  except  by  the  reputation  of  the  maker. 

Q.    So  far  as  appearance  goes  it  was  good,  was  it?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  So  far  as  3'ou  can  judge,  the  bracing  and  the  cross-bracing  of 
the  floor  system  were  all-sufficient?  A.  Well,  I  think  that  is  a  little 
more  than  I  could  say. 

Q.  Qualify  it,  then,  as  far  as  you  please.  A.  The}'  were  sufficient 
to  carry  the  loads. 

Q.  There  was  no  insufficiency  in  them  which  tended  to  produce 
this  accident?  A.  There  is  no  clew  to  having  any  such  insufficiency 
act  as  an  agent  in  this  accident.  There  is  a  possibility,  but  no  clew 
in  the  circumstances  which  I  have  been  able  to  see. 

Q.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  insufficiency  in  that  bridge  which 
contributed  to  this  accident  except  the  bad  design  of  those  hangers, 
is  there?     A.   Not  that  I  have  seen  or  been  able  to  find. 

Q.  Can  you  judge  of  the  quality  of  the  iron  of  the  hangers  from 
any  inspection?  A.  No  inspection  which  I  have  been  able  to  make 
would  enable  me  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  quality  of  that  iron. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  it  is  quite  a  sufficient  cause  for  this  acci- 
dent that  those  hangers,  however  well  made  and  of  however  good 
material,  from  the  character  of  their  design  and  from  the  mode  in 
which  they  were  made,  would  naturally  lead  to  all  these  results.  A. 
Well,  I  think  material  of  extra  fine  quality  —  costly  material  —  might 
have  been  put  in  there.  Steel,  of  course,  might  have  been  put  in 
there,  which,  perhaps,  might  have  made  them  safe  ;  but  with  the 
ordinary  quality  of  good  bridge  iron  I  think  it  was  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  their  design. 

Q.  At  the  time  those  hangers  came  from  the  shop,  and  were  put 
into  the  bridge,  I  take  it  there  would  be  nothing  about  them  to  indi- 
cate, even  to  a  man  with  a  good  degree  of  professional  skill,  that  they 
were  wrong,  excepting  their  design,  from  the  mode  in  which  the  rings 
were  made  by  welding  instead  of  by  dies?  A.  I  think  it  is  probable 
that  this  casting  —  of  course  I  can't  judge  — 

Q.  I  only  ask  you  to  say  if  it  may  well  have  been  so?  A.  Yes, 
it  ma}T  have  been  so  ;  it  is  quite  possible, —  probable. 

Q.  Then,  if  I  understand  you,  in  all  probability,  if  an  independent 
engineer  had  inspected  that  work,  he  would  have  found  nothing  wrong 
about  it ;  that  is,  nothing  to  do  with  this  accident,  excepting  a  matter 


APPENDIX.  385 

of  engineering  design,  in  the  form  of  those  hangers?      A.    I  think 
that  is  very  probable. 

Q.  Now,  as  to  the  general  merits  of  this  style  of  bridge,  I  suppose, 
Mr.  Philbrick,  you  have  an  opinion,  and  I  have  no  doubt  the  commis- 
sioners would  be  glad  to  hear  it,  irrespective  of  its  effects  upon  tins 
question.  A.  Well,  I  think  it  had  two  faults,  invited  other  means 
of  destruction  besides  the  one  that  actually  caused  it.  I  don't  know 
that  they  are  material  to  this  case  ;  I  don't  think  they  are  material  to 
this  particular  disaster. 

Q.  I  will  ask  3-011  one  question  more:  Having  in  view  the  char- 
acter of  the  material  and  workmanship,  and  assuming  that  Mr.  Hew- 
ins  was  the  engineer  employed  to  build  this  bridge,  do  you  see  any 
indications  that  the  work  could  have  been  better  done  if  he  had  em- 
ployed some  other  contractor  than  himself?     A.    Under  his  design? 

Q.  Yes.  He  being  the  engineer,  do  3-011  see  that  any  harm  has 
come  from  his  also  being  the  contractor?  A.  That  is  a  question 
depending  upon  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  which  I  do 
not  — 

Q.  No  ;  it  depends  upon  the  constitution  of  this  bridge.  Do  you 
suppose  that  another  contractor,  under  his  design,  he  being  the  super- 
intending engineer,  would  have  made  a  better  bridge  than  this?  A. 
I  think  it  possible  that  he  might. 

Q.  Do  you  see  an3r  reason  to  think  that  he  would  have?  A.  Not 
without  altering  the  design. 

Q.  I  ask  you  to  assume,  in  my  question,  that  Mr.  Hewins  is  the 
engineer,  and  that  the  bridge  is  to  be  built  from  his  design?  A. 
What  I  meant  to  indicate  was  that  possibly  an  engineer  might  have 
pointed  out  that  defect  in  design,  and  had  it  altered,  if  it  had  been 
brought  to  Mr.  Hewins'  notice. 

Q.  That  is  an  objection  to  my  question.  T  would  like  to  have  you 
answer  my  question  as  I  put  it.  I  do  not  want  to  mislead  you,  but  I 
ask  you,  whether,  assuming  that  Mr.  Hewins  was  the  engineer  of  the 
bridge  and  the  designer  of  the  bridge,  and  that  he  had  employed 
another  contractor  to  build  the  bridge,  under  his  design,  do  you  think 
that  another  contractor  would  have  built  the  bridge  any  better  than 
he  seems  to  have  built  it?     A.    Not  without  altering  the  design. 

Q.  So  far  as  workmanship  goes,  you  can  testify  that  the  work  is 
as  well  done  as  if  another  contractor  had  built  it?     A.    Yea. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  said  that,  on  examining  the  wreck 
of  this  bridge,  you  saw  that  the  bridge  would  be  likely  to  fall  in, 
because  of  the  derailment,  and  therefore  you  looked  in  the  first  place 
fur  evidence  of  derailment?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  What  were  the  features  in  the  bridge  which  led  you  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  dangerous  in  case  of  derailment?     A.    I  saw  that 


386  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

it  had  an  open  floor,  and  that  in  case  of  derailment  the  wheels  would 
have  nothing  to  rest  upon  of  any  consequence  to  support  them. 

Q.  How  do  3-011  mean  "  an  open  floor"?  A.  That  the  sleepers 
were  not  long  enough  and  not  numerous  enough  to  give  continuous 
support  to  the  wheels,  and  that  there  were  no  track  stringers  outside 
of  the  line  of  the  rails  to  support  the  ends  of  the  sleepers,  if  a 
derailed  car  should  travel  off  a  foot  or  two  from  the  rail. 

Q.  You  say  that  the  sleepers  were  not  long  enough,  —  in  which 
direction?  A.  Well,  except  the  first  panel  length  of  the  bridge  on 
one  side,  they  were  very  short.  They  were  interrupted  by  the  top 
chord  of  the  bridge  coming  up  about  to  a  level  with  the  rail,  cutting 
off  the  ends  of  the  sleepers,  so  the}"  could  not  be  more  than  a  f  ot 
outside  of  the  rail. 

Q.    And  that,  you  think,  was  too  short  a  distance?     A.    I  do. 
Q.    How  far  ought  they  to  have  come  beyond  the  rail?     A.    I  think 
they  ought  to  have  come  six  feet  beyond  the  rail. 

Q.  How  far  did  they  come  in  this  portion  of  the  bridge  before  you 
get  to  the  top  chord?  A.  I  have  been  unable  to  see  how  far  that 
Mas  ;  but  they  had  nothing  to  support  them,  so  that  I  don't  think  they 
were  of  much  value. 

Q.  Where  they  did  extend,  were  they  supported?  A.  They  had 
nothing  under  them. 

Q.  How  far  apart  were  the  sleepers  on  the  bridge?  A.  They 
were  twenty-three  inches  from  centre  to  centre  where  I  measured 
them.  I  measured  them  in  two  or  three  places  among  the  wreck,  by 
the  scars  they  had  made  on  the  track  stringers  under  them. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  size  of  the  sleepers?  A.  I  measured  one 
or  two,  but  I  have  forgotten  now.  I  have  a  note  of  it  (referring  to 
memorandum).  The  spaces  between  them  were  fifteen  inches  in  the 
clear.  They  were  eight  inches  wide,  making  twenty- three  inches  from 
centre  to  centre.  I  did  not  measure  their  height;  they  might  have 
been  six  or  eight  inches  deep. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  was  the  average?  A.  So  it  appeared  to  be. 
I  measured  it  in  two  places  ;  it  appeared  to  be  the  general  rule. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  proper  opening  between  the 
ties  on  that  bridge?     A.    Not  over  six  inches  in  the  clear. 

Q.  You  say  "  not  over  six  inches."  Would  four  inches  be  better? 
A.   Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  best  to  go  less  than  four  inches?  A.  I  don't  think  it  is  a 
great  deal  of  consequence  less  than  six  inches,  if  the  sleepers  were 
hard  wood. 

Q.  Were  those  hard  wood?  A.  They  were  hard  pine,  as  near  as 
I  could  judge  about  it.  I  am  not  positive  ;  they  looked  like  hard 
pine. 


APPENDIX.  337 

Q.  Then  about  the  other  arrangements  for  safety  in  the  floor  sys- 
tem of  this  bridge,  —  what  were  they?  A.  I  don't  think  they  were  of 
much  efficiency.  There  was  a  plank  spiked  to  the  ends  of  tiie  sleepers 
outside  of  the  rail. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  from  the  rail?  A.  I  did  not  take  any  note 
of  that ;  in  fact  I  don't  know  whether  J  saw  the  plank;  I  saw  the 
scar  on  the  sleepers  where  it  had  been  attached,  but  I  did  not  measure 
it.  It  could  not  have  been  far  from  the  rail,  between  the  top  chord 
member  and  the  western  rail,  because  there  was  only  a  foot  of  sleeper 
outside  the  rail. 

Q.  What  was  the  size  of  the  plank?  Did  you  measure  it?  A.  I 
did  not  measure  it.     It  may  have  been  three  inches. 

Q.  Three  by  ten  has  been  the  testimony  about  it.  A.  Very  likely 
that  is  right. 

Q.  Was  that  plank  notched  to  the  sleepers?  A.  I  cannot  say.  I 
did  not  see  the  plank  itself;  it  was  split  up.  I  did  not  see  it  except 
at  a  distance  ;  did  not  examine  it  to  see  whether  it  was  notched. 

Q.  Did  }-ou  discover  anything  that  would  keep  the  sleepers  in 
place,  except  the  spikes?     A.    No;  nothing  but  the  spikes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  guard  timber  except  this  plank?  A.  There 
was,  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  bridge  ;  I  did  not  see  any  elsewhere. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  that  timber?  A.  It  appeared  to  have 
been  spiked  or  bolted  on  to  the  ends  of  the  sleepers. 

Q.  Would  that  have  done  any  good  in  case  of  derailment?  A. 
No,  sir ;  I  think  the  sleepers  would  have  broken  off  before  the  wheels 
reached  it. 

Q.    Inasmuch  as  they  were  not  supported?     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Were  there  any  guard  rails  on  the  bridge?  A.  I  did  not  see 
any  trace  of  any. 

Q.  Now,  what  is  your  opinion  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  pro- 
viding a  bridge  with  guard  rails  between  the  tracks?  A.  I  think  it 
is  a  proper  thing  to  do,  —  a  measure  of  prudence. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  the  danger  that  somebody  may  place  an 
obstruction  between  the  guard  rail  and  the  track  rail  is  a  serious 
danger?  A.  No;  except  in  cities  where  there  are  great  throngs  of 
boys,  it  might  be  ;  but  in  ordinary  cases  I  should  not  think  it  of  much 
consequence.  It  is  not  necessary  to  put  a  guard  rail  so  close  to  the 
rail  as  to  invite  that  sort  of  thing. 

Q.  How  far  would  you  put  it  from  the  rail?  A.  It  need  not  come 
within  six  inches,  and  still  be  efficient.  It  would  not  keep  wheels  on 
the  track  in  that  case,  but  it  would  prevent  them  wandering  80  far  as 
to  get  a  truck  cornerwise. 

Q.  In  the  city  of  Boston  would  you  hesitate  to  put  a  guard  rail 
upon  bridges?     A.    Well,  I  think  I  should  put  it  on;  but   I  would 


388  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

keep  the  boys  off.     Boys  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  walk  over  rail- 
road bridges. 

Q.  Would  you  put  a  guard  rail  on  the  outside  of  the  track?  A.  I 
never  attached  much  importance  to  that.  I  have  generally  bolted  a 
timber  down  to  keep  the  sleepers  in  place.  I  do  not  think  that  adds 
a  great  deal  to  the  prevention  of  trucks  drawing  out  of  line. 

Q.  How  about  this  timber;  would  you  notch  it  as  well  as  bolt  it? 
A.  Certainly  ;  I  always  notch  them  down  to  keep  the  sleepers  in 
place. 

Q.  How  about  the  derailment  of  a  train  coming  towards  a  bridge? 
Would  a  guard  rail  bent  out  have  a  tendency  to  bring  the  train  back 
towards  the  track,  and  carry  it  safely  over?  Is  it  any  advantage  to 
have  a  guard  rail  at  an  approach  to  a  bridge,  in  order  to  turn  towards 
the  track  a  train  that  has  been  derailed?  A.  Yes;  I  think  it  may 
be  an  advantage.  It  is  not  always  sure,  but  it  is  a  safeguard  that 
may  be  efficient  sometimes. 

Q.  Is  there  any  harm  or  any  danger  in  it?  A.  I  don't  think  there 
is  any  danger  that  is  material. 

Q.  Then,  would  you  place  at  the  beginning  of  a  bridge,  on  the 
embankment,  before  you  reach  the  bridge,  a  guard  rail  on  the  outside, 
bending  towards  the  track  at  the  bridge,  and  on  the  bridge  itself  a 
guard  timber,  and  not  a  guard  rail  on  the  outside?  A.  I  have  never 
been  in  the  habit  of  placing  a  guard  rail  approaching  a  bridge  on  the 
outside  of  the  track.  It  is  generally  applied  inside  the  track,  con- 
verging to  the  centre  on  each  side. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  accomplishes  all  that  is  desired?  A.  Yes. 
It  is  a  great  deal  more  efficient  there  than  it  is  outside,  because  in 
case  of  derailment  the  wheels  strike  that  guard  rail  with  their  flanges 
bearing  on  the  ground,  and  have  the  whole  height  of  the  rail  to  rise 
over  to  get  over  it.  If  it  is  on  the  outside,  the  bearing  flanges  are 
on  the  ground,  and  the  treads  of  the  wheel  are  up,  and  would  be  more 
likely  to  rise  over  the  rail. 

Q.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  you  place  a  guard  rail  between  the 
tracks,  you  can  only  allow  for  a  derailment  equivalent  to  half  the 
distance  between  the  tracks;  whereas,  if  you  put  it  outside,  you  can 
allow  for  a  still  greater  derailment,  can  you  not?  A.  I  think  if  a 
wheel  gets  off  over  three  feet  from  its  track,  it  is  not  so  easily  diverted 
again  ;  there  is  not  much  to  lead  it  into  the  straightway  again. 

Q.  Still,  would  it  do  any  harm  to  have  it  out  there?  A.  No,  sir; 
no  harm. 

Q.  If  a  train  had  been  derailed  on  this  bridge,  would  there  have 
been  any  chance  of  the  train  getting  over  without  tearing  the  bridge 
down?     A.    I  cannot  say,  because  I  did  not  inspect  the  bridge  before 


APPENDIX.  389 

the  disaster.     I  don't  know  exactly  how  it  was  located,  but   I   think 
there  would  have  heen  a  very  small  chance. 

Q.  On  the  supposition  that  the  openinga  between  the  ties  were 
Gfteeu  inches,  and  that  the  ties  were  not  fixed  by  any  notched  beam, 
but  only  by  spikes,  would  there  have  been  any  reasonable  hope  that 
a  derailed  train  could  have  been  carried  over  that  bridge?  A.  I 
think  it  is  possible  that  if  the  three-inch  plank  were  sound  and  - 
and  the  sleepers  strong  enough  to  bear  up  the  weight  without  their 
ends  breaking  down,  so  long  as  a  wheel  remained  close  to  the  rail, 
it  might  have  been  sustained  by  that  plank. 

Q.  That  would  have  been  only  the  wheels  on  one  side?  A.  I 
suppose  the  plank  could  have  been  applied  on  the  other  side  ;  I  don't 
know. 

Q.    Was  it?     A.    I  don't  know  ;  I  did  not  see  it. 

Q.  Suppose  a  train  in  coming  towards  Boston  had  run  off  the  track 
towards  this  Hewins  truss,  the  wheels  on  that  side  might  have  been 
supported  on  that  plank,  might  they  not?     A.    Possibly. 

Q.  How  about  the  other  wheels  which  would  then  have  been  between 
the  two  rails,  would  they  have  had  any  support  on  any  plank?  A.  I 
did  not  see  any  trace  of  any  plank  there. 

Q.  Would  they  not  have  dropped  down  between  the  ties,  and  cut 
and  ripped  up  the  bridge?  A.  I  think  they  would  have  destroyed 
the  bridge,  if  there  was  no  support  there  for  them  above  the  ties. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  testing  bridges  by  applying 
heavy  loads  to  them,  is  it  a  fact  that  a  heavy  load  applied  to  a  bridge 
as  a  test,  instead  of  being  of  value  as  a  test,  might  in  reality  have 
weakened  the  bridge,  so  that  it  would  be  more  likely  to  fall  down  the 
next  day  than  it  was  the  day  before?  A.  If  the  bridge  was  sound, 
and  the  amount  of  testing  load  not  extravagant,  it  would  not  be  likely 
to  be  injured. 

Q.  In  the  case  of  this  bridge,  with  its  eccentric  hangers,  might  not 
the  very  load  that  was  put  upon  it  as  a  test  have  really  opened  those 
hangers  still  more,  and  made  that  bridge  weaker  after  the  test  than  it 
was  before?  A.  Yes;  that  is  possible,  with  that  peculiar  construc- 
tion of  the  bridge. 

Q.  What  are  the  relations  between  the  test  of  a  heavy  load  or 
weight  upon  a  bridge  and  the  test  of  a  bridge  by  running  a  train  over 
it, —  which  is  the  best  test?  A.  Well,  a  quiescent  load  can  be  easily 
followed  out  through  every  member  of  the  bridge  to  the  point  of  sup- 
port on  the  abutment.  We  can  compute  the  strain  with  gnat  .••  1- 
tainty,  as  to  how  it  would  be  applied  and  how  it  would  affect  every 
member  of  the  bridge.  A  moving  load  we  cannot;  a  large  margin 
must  be  allowed  for  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact  manner  in  which  a 
moving  train  affects  the  bridge. 


390  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Q.  In  ordinary  bridges  do  you  say  that  you  would  not  apply  the 
test  of  a  dead  weight  as  a  means  of  giving  assurance  of  safety  of  a 
bridge,  —  that  you  would  give  that  up?  A.  I  should  not  feel  any 
more  assurance  of  safety  after  having  done  so  than  before,  irryself. 

Q.  Could  you  get  in  practice  any  information  in  regard  to  the 
Strength  of  an  iron  bridge  by  making  a  dead-weight  test?  A.  Noth- 
ing that  I  should  consider  of  any  value  as  applied  to  its  use. 

Q.  Is  there  any  test  of  an  iron  bridge  that  can  be  made  by  weight- 
ing it,  or  by  running  trains  over  it,  that  in  your  opinion  would  be  of 
value?  A.  Only  by  careful  inspection  by  a  person  fully  qualified  to 
judge  of  the  signs  of  depreciation. 

Q.  At  the  time  the  train  was  running  over  it?  A.  Yes,  and  by 
examining  the  parts. 

Q.  I  understand  about  the  examination  of  the  parts,  of  course  ; 
but  is  there  any  other  means  of  testing  the  strength  or  forming  an 
opinion  of  the  strength  of  a  bridge?  A.  I  think  a  person  fully  qual- 
ified, an  experienced  person,  can  judge  somewhat;  at  any  rate,  he 
would  be  capable  of  detecting  certain  weaknesses,  if  they  existed,  by 
watching  the  lateral  disturbances  in  the  bridge  under  the  motion  of 
the  train,  and  the  amount  of  deflection.  If  the  deflection  was  exces- 
sive it  would  be  a  point  of  suspicion  which  he  would  follow  up  and 
trace  to  its  origin. 

Q.  Would  you  take  that  deflection  simply  with  a  moving  train,  or 
would  you  take  it  with  dead  weight?  A.  I  think  it  is  better  to 
take  it  with  a  moving  train,  because  it  is  greater  under  a  moving 
train  than  it  is  under  a  still  one. 

Q.  Then,  your  examination  of  bridges  would  be  to  examine  all 
their  component  parts  and  the  general  method  of  construction  of  the 
bridge,  and  an  examination  of  it  under  the  test  of  a  moving  train,  to 
see  what  its  deflections  were?  A.  Yes.  I  should,  in  the  first  place, 
compute  the  actual  strain  upon  every  member  of  the  bridge  under  the 
regular  traffic,  and  the  extreme  traffic  to  which  it  is  likely  to  be 
exposed,  and  see  if  metal  is  provided  ample  in  quantity  to  meet  those 
strains.  Men  who  are  experienced  in  looking  round  bridges  can  de- 
tect the  gradual  depreciation  of  the  parts  from  wear. 

Q.  In  1881,  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  reported  that 
this  bridge  was  of  peculiar  construction,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  tested 
from  time  to  time.  Supposing  that  in  1882  you  had  been  called  upon 
to  examine  that  bridge,  what  would  you  have  done?  A.  I  should 
first  have  satisfied  myself  that  there  was  sufficient  metal  in  every 
member  to  resist  the  strains  which  were  likely  to  be  brought  upon  it 
by  the  traffic.  I  should  have  been  obliged  to  compute  those  strains 
from  the  actual  loads  which  were  likely  to  traverse  the  bridge,  and  I 
should  have  examined  the  pattern  and  workmanship  of  the  parts.     I 


APPENDIX.  391 

think  if  I  bad  been  there  while  this  bridge  was  in  use,  I  should  have 
reported  that  certain  vital  parts  were  invisible,  and  I  could  not  form 
an  opinion  about  them. 

Q.  Could  you  then  have  discovered  the  eccentricity  of  those  parte  ? 
A.  lam  in  doubt  whether  I  should  have  been  able  to,  because  I  did 
not  see  the  bridge  when  it  was  in  position.  I  doubt  whether  I  could 
have  done  so. 

Q.  Would  it  or  not  then  have  been  your  report :  "  There  bein»  cer- 
tain vital  parts  in  this  bridge  which  cannot  be  examined  by  me,  I  rec- 
ommend that  it  betaken  down"?  A.  I  should  have  recommended 
that  it  be  disused,  propped  up  at  once,  before  another  day. 

Q.  Should  every  bridge  which  has  vital  parts  which  are  covered  up, 
and  of  which  you  can  form  therefore  no  estimate  as  fco  its  workman- 
ship, its  strength  or  the  nature  of  its  construction,  be  condemned? 
A.  It  ought  to  be  condemned  for  use  until  the  structure  was 
modified. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  the  speed  of  this  train  was?  Aside  from 
the  testimony  that  we  have  had  that  it  was  about  fifteen  miles  an 
hour,  what  would  have  been  your  estimate  as  to  the  probable  speed  of 
this  train.  A.  Well,  my  only  means  of  judging  are  the  effects  of 
concussion,  stopping  the  train,  and  the  effect  of  the  shock  created  by 
it.  I  think  that  it  may  have  been  anywdiere  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
miles  an  hour.     I  can't  define  it. 

Q.  Not  over  twent}'  miles  an  hour?  A.  I  have  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose it  was. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  the  defects  of  the  floor  S3'stem  of  the 
bridge  ;  you  have  said  that  you  knew  that  the  extension  chords  of  the 
bridge  were  of  good  workmanship.  How  about  the  compression 
members,  their  design  and  construction?  A.  Well,  it  is  a  style  of 
compression  member  which  I  have  used  and  which  I  consider  proper 
in  certain  places,  but  I  do  not  think  it  was  adapted  to  that  place.  [ 
do  not  think  it  had  anything  to  do  with  this  disaster,  however. 

Q.  No;  1  only  wanted  to  get  at  the  quality  of  the  bridge.  I  ap- 
preciate that  that  was  not  the  thing  that  gave  way.  apparently.  Have 
you  ever  seen  a  bridge  with  compression  members  of  that  sort,  with 
the  track  on  the  top  member?     A.    No;  1  never  saw  it  done  before. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  consider  that  a  safe  or  proper  method  of  construction? 
A.    I  do  not  consider  it  proper. 

Q.  What  is  the  danger?  A.  The  top  chord  is  subject  to  being 
abused  by  any  mishap  to  a  train,  and  such  abuse  would  be  very 
likely  to  destroy  the  bridge. 

Q.  If  it  was  struck  a  slight  blow,  what  would  be  the  result  ?  A. 
I  think  it  would  be  very  likely  to  destroy  the  bridge. 

Q.    The  immediate  result  would  lie  that  the  differenl  sections  would 


392  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

be  thrown  apart?  A.  I  think  that  if  the  blow  struck  anywhere  near 
the  joint,  it  would  be  likel}*  to  throw  both  members  out  together. 

Q.  How  about  the  iron  work  itself  in  those  compression  members, 
and  their  construction?  A.  They  appear  to  me  to  be  of  good  mate- 
rial. I  could  judge  somewhat  by  their  fracture  when  they  were -torn 
in  the  fall.  It  looked  as  if  it  was  good  enough  material  for  that  pur- 
pose. It  is  a  very  strong  form  of  compression  member,  a  corrugated 
cylinder,  which  is  the  strongest  theoretical  form. 

Q.  The  hangers  themselves  you  have  examined,  have  you?  A. 
Yes,  sir ;  I  have  examined  Ihem  here. 

Q.  Do.  you  agree  with  the  testimony  that  has  been  given  by  Pro- 
fessor Swain  in  regard  to  the  age  of  the  fractures  ;  that  is,  as  to  how 
much  of  them  was  an  old  fracture?  A.  I  did  not  watch  the  points 
that  he  was  pointing  out,  but  as  far  as  I  could  follow  him,  from  being 
seated  a  rod  or  two  from  him,  I  think  I  should  agree  with  him.  In 
my  opinion,  the  fracture  of  one  hanger  was  nearly  all  old,  all  but 
about  one-quarter  of  one  side  ;  and  the  fracture  of  the  other  one  was 
comparatively  recent,  through  all  but  about  perhaps  one-quarter  of 
one  side. 

Q.  How  about  the  workmanship  of  those  hangers,  aside  from  the 
design  of  them?  A.  I  should  not  think  of  the  workmanship  of  the 
west  poition  as  being  particular!}'  bad  ;  it  is  not  of  the  best.  It  did 
not  strike  me  as  being  particularly  bad. 

Q..  Are  there  any  portions  of  those  hangers  where  there  would  be 
a  great  strain,  which  are  apparently  necessarily  weak?  A.  Yes;  I 
think  that  is  the  fault  of  the  design,  not  of  the  workmanship.  I  can- 
not form  any  opinion  of  the  quality  of  the  iron  without  testing  it. 

Q.  What  do  you  estimate  to  be  the  difference  in  strength  between 
a  hanger  with  that  eccentricity  and  a  hanger  in  which  the  point  of 
support  was  vertical,  without  eccentricity?     A.   The  same  amount  of 


iron 


Q.  The  same  amount  of  iron.  A.  I  made  it  between  four  and 
five  fold. 

Q.  That  is,  if  those  hangers  would  support  50,000  pounds,  a 
hanger  in  which  there  was  no  eccentricity  would  support  200,000 
pounds?     A.    Yes,  of  the  same  size. 

Q.  Can  you  make  a  drawing  showing  the  coupling  of  the  Miller 
platform  ?     A.    The  hook  ? 

Q.  The  hook  ;  yes.  A.  I  have  never  happened  to  have  a  draw- 
ing in  my  possession.  I  don't  know  anything  more  about  it  than 
any  one  wdio  looks  at  it ;  but  I  can  give  a  general  sketch  of  it. 

Mr.  Doane.     There  is  something  near  it.     (Showing  the  sketch.) 

The  Chairman.     What  is  the  depth  of  it? 

Mr.  Toane.     It  is  about  five  or  six  inches,  up  and  down. 


APPENDIX.  393 

(Mr.  Philbrick  made  another  drawing  of  the  Miller  platform,  which 
he  handed  to  the  Chairman.) 

Q.  You  have  spoken  about  the  supporting  power  of  the  rails,  etc. 
Would  the  Miller  platform  have  any  power  in  supporting  ears  and 
carrying  them  over  that  abyss?  Of  course,  if  the  car  dropped 
straight  down,  it  is  very  evident  that  it  would  not  support  it  at  all. 
There  is  nothing,  in  that  case,  to  prevent  that  Miller  platform  from 
going  right  down,  is  there?     A.   No,  sir. 

Q.  If,  however,  the  cars  got  into  that  position,  would  the  Miller 
platform  support  them?  A.  Well,  the  ears  as  they  appear  to  have 
been  actually  there,  jammed  together,  one  of  them  on  top  of  the 
other,  —  I  think  one  car  might  hang  on  the  other  for  a  while  ;  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  forward  end  of  the  second  car  was  so  supported. 
I  understood  Mr.  Richards  to  say  that  it  was  found  with  the  body  on 
the  ground  ;  in  fact,  the  platform  showed  it  to  have  been  so  by  the 
way  it  was  broken.  I  think  that  might  have  been  supported  for  a 
while  by  the  hind  end  of  the  car.  When  the  forward  truck  of  the 
second  car  was  shoved  back,  these  two  platforms  came  together  by 
one  being  shoved  over  the  other.  They  were  entangled  there,  so 
that  it  took  some,  time  to  get  them  apart. 

Mr.  Putnam.     The  first  and  second  cars  were  eight  feet  apart. 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  consider  it  important  whether  it  was  the 
first  or  second.  Any  two  cars  jammed  together  are  capable  of  sup- 
porting each  other  for  a  little  while  ;  but  the  wheels  must  be  under 
one  end  of  the  one  which  is  supporting,  and  must  be  under  the  other 
end  of  the  one  which  is  supported. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  whether  there  were  any  chains  in  the  Miller 
platform?     A.    I  did  not  notice. 

The  Chairman.     Were  there,  Mr.  Folsom? 

Mr.  A.  A.  Folsom.     No,  sir. 

Q.  The  third  car  was  thrown  up  on  the  Miller  platform  of  the 
second  car,  and  they  were  so  entangled  that  they  did  stick  together  ; 
but  in  case  that  had  not  happened,  would  those  platforms  bite  to- 
gether so  as  to  help  support  the  car?  A.  I  don't  think  the  couplings 
and  draw-bars  would  afford  any  support. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  any  of  those  draw-bars  to  see  whether  they 
were  bent  up  or  down  in  any  way?  A.  I  noticed  one  on  the  forward 
end  of  the  second  car  was  bent  up. 

Q.  Does  not  that  tend  to  show  that  it  was  put  to  a  supporting 
strain?  A.  It  looked  to  me  that  it  had  fallen  to  the  ground,  and  got 
bent  up  by  striking  on  the  ground.  The  whole  platform  was  bent  up 
in  that  way  (illustrating). 

Q.    Do  you  know  how  much  of  a  drop  is  required  in  order  to  let  a 


394  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

truck  fall  out  from  under  a  ear?  A.  No,  I  don't.  I  don't  think 
they  are  all  alike.     I  am  not  familiar  with  the  length  of  the  bolt. 

Q.  How  do  you  estimate  the  effect  on  these  sixty-foot  rails  that 
came  to  the  noith  embankment,  and  which  terminated  six  feet  from 
that  block  where  the  broken  hangers  were?  What  was  the  effect 
upon  that  when  the  floor  system  gave  way?  In  the  first  place,  were 
those  rails  at  all  bent  out  of  a  horizontal  line?  .  A.  Yes;  they  were 
bent  horizontally,  but  not  out  of  the  horizontal  plane  ;  they  were  bent 
in  the  hotizontal  plane,  not  (Hit  of  it  to  any  extent. 

Q.  Therefore  they  did  not  bend  down?  A.  Not  to  any  extent. 
They  were  bent  down  a  little  ;  not  of  much  importance. 

Q.  When  this  floor  system  went  down,  therefore,  they  did  not  go 
down,  did  they,  unless  they  were  torn  away?  A.  Well,  I  think  they 
went  down  as  soon  as  the}-  got  the  weight  of  the  wheels  upon  them  ; 
but  they  would  not  otherwise.  But  there  were  wheels  on  them  all  the 
time.  I  think  they  must  have  been  laid  preUy  nearly  in  contact  with 
the  track  stringers. 

Q.  When  they  went  down,  one  portion  of  them  being  supported 
on  this  abutment,  if  they  went  down  so,  and  one  got  bent  down  so, 
that  would  still  show,  would  it  not,  in  their  present  condition?  A. 
If  they  did  not  flare,  it  would  ;  but  I  think  their  present  condition  is 
proof  that  they  were  torn  out  of  their  fastenings  before  they  settled 
much. 

Q.  And  turned  over  on  their  sides?  A.  Yes.  Well,  they  were 
twisted  up  after  they  left  their  fastenings.  I  don't  know  how  the}r 
went;  nobody  could  follow  them.  They  were  ripped  out  of  their 
fastenings  before  their  supports  went  down  much. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  how  the  rail  parted  from  that  floor 
system?  The  floor  system  did  go  down.  A.  I  can't  find  any  defi- 
nite clew  to  answer  that  question  ;  it  is  a  matter  of  supposition 
merely  ;  but  I  think  it  is  very  likely  to  occur  by  a  truck  getting  a 
little  cornerwise,  tearing  the  rail  out  of  place,  and  then  the  truck  was 
shoved  forward  by  the  momentum  of  the  matter  behind  it,  which 
would  carry  the  ends  of  the  rails  with  it,  and  tear  them  out  of  their 
fastenings  ;  and,  as  the  truck  advanced,  I  think  the  sleepers  went 
with  them. 

<,>.  (By  Mr.  Putnam  )  Whether  the  settling  caused  by  the  giving 
way  of  the  hangers  would  be  likely  to  cant  up  the  two  ends  of  the 
rails?  A.  I  cannot  trace  that  action  as  anything  very  definite.  It 
is  possible  ;  but  I  think  there  is  another  point  which  might  have  acted 
as  an  agent  in  carrying  those  rails  forward.  The  first  wheel  that 
struck  in  between  the  sleepers,  as  soon  as  the  joints  of  the  rails  were 
separata!  from  their  neighbors,  would  tend  to  slide  the  sleepers  all 
up  in  a  heap,  and  carry  the  rails  along.     The  wheels  would  drop  on 


APPENDIX.  395 

to  the  sleepers  at  first,  and  the  pushing  of  the  Bleepers  may  have 
started  the  rails  until  they  caught  in  the  truck  or  truck  timbers 
somewhere. 

Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Would  you  not  have  expected  that  the 
rails  would  have  been  bent  in  the  same  direction?      A.    That  .1 
follow  necessarily  ;  they  might  not  have  been  able  to  go  in  the  same 
direction.     There  were  the  wheels  to  prevent  them.     They  must  have 
been  pressed  out  of  their  fastenings  when  they  went  in  that  direction. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Did  you  examine  the  curves  in  the  track 
at  the  approaches  to  this  bridge  on  the  north  side?  A.  Merely  to 
give  them  a  glance  ;  not  particularly. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  in  them  to  cause  any  apprehension?  A. 
No,  sir;  the  track  was  in  good  order  at  both  ends. 

Q.  The  fact  that  those  two  curves  are  on  the  other  side  of  the 
bridge,  at  the  distance  at  which  they  were,  would  not  lie,  in  your 
judgment,  an  element  of  danger  in  connection  with  the  bridge?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Yon  say  you  would  condemn  any  bridge  which  had  an  impor- 
tant part  which  was  out  of  sight?  A.  I  should  condemn  it  for  use 
until  that  was  examined  and  found  sufficient. 

Q.  Plow  about  the  foundation  of  an  arched  bridge,  or  the  piers  of 
a  long  truss  biidge?  A.  That  is  not  a  part  of  the  bridge  :  it  is  the 
foundation.  That  is  another  tiling.  I  was  talking  about  a  frame 
structure. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  call  an  arch  a  bridge?  A.  I  do  not  call  the 
foundation  of  an  arch  a  bridge  ;  no.  I  was  speaking  of  an  iron  frame  ; 
all  my  remarks  were  limited  to  an  iron  frame. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  mean  to  limit  your  remark  to  a  member  which  is 
not  only  important,  but  which  carries  upon  itself  a  good  deal  of  the 
weight  of  the  bridge?     A.    I  said  "  vital,"  I  think,  at  the  time. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hewins.)  I  suppose,  Mr.  Philbrick,  this  question  of 
concealment  of  vital  parts  of  a  bridge  would  apply  as  well  to  a  wooden 
bridge  as  to  an  iron  bridge,  would  it  not?     A.    Certainly. 

Q.  But  it  is  customary  in  almost  all  woolen  bridges,  is  it  not,  for 
some  portions  of  the  main  truss  to  be  concealed,  where  they  [>a>s 
through  a  socket,  where  they  pass  through  the  chords?  A.  It  is  to 
be  presumed  that  rolled  iron  and  straight  iron  is  all  alike.  1  don't 
think  that  is  an  unwarrantable  assumption. 

([.  Exactly;  but  some  portions  of  the  main  truss  which  are  vit:d 
parts  of  the  structure  arc  concealed  from  view,  and  the  pins,  where 
they  would  be  likely  to  break,  if  they  broke  at  all.  are  where  they 
show  the  screw  threads,  are  they  not?  A.  5fes,  sir;  but  those  are 
easily  judged   by  the   portion  which  extends   through   the  nut-.      V. 


396  BUSSEY  BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

can  judge  always  there  whether  the  iron  is  properly  proportioned,  and 
what  the  size  was. 

C^.  You  can  undoubtedly  determine  what  the  thing  was,  but  its 
present  condition  is  what  I  am  asking  about.  A.  I  can't  see  any 
connection  with  the  question  at  issue  here.  Wooden  bridges  are 
rarely  built  upon  a  thorough^  mathematical  analysis  of  strains  ;  I 
don't  know  that  they  ever  were. 

Q.  Yesterday,  there  was  in  Professor  Swain's  evidence,  if  I  remember 
correctly,  a  statement  that  iron  bridges  could  be  built  perfectly  safe 
from  the  effects  of  derailment.  In  the  case  of  the  Haverhill  bridge, 
do  you  think  a  derailment  there  sufficient  to  cause  a  collision  with  one 
of  the  posts  would  be  a  safe  thing  to  have?  A.  I  don't  think  it 
would  destroy  the  bridge.  I  don't  suppose  Professor  Swain  meant 
safe  from  all  injury,  but  safe  against  the  destruction  of  the  bridge. 
There  was  a  post  of  a  similar  truss  over  the  Hudson  River  at  Albany, 
the  first  iron  bridge  which  was  built  there,  which  was  knocked  out  by 
a  derailed  engine  ;  one  of  the  Phoenixville  posts  was  knocked  out  of 
its  place  ;  the  driving  wheel  of  the  engine  struck  it,  I  believe,  —  I 
have  forgotten  what  part  of  it,  — and  not  only  knocked  out  that  post, 
but  bent  the  tension  members  considerably.  But  the  bridge  did  not 
fall.  It  was  repaired  at  small  expense.  This  Linville  truss  was  a 
small  plain  truss,  with  double  sections. 

Q.  You  would  uot  care  to  risk  it  again  ?  A.  I  should  not  care  to 
be  on  the  engine  every  time.  I  think  it  would  be  a  needless  risk. 
But  it  would  not  be  likely  to  destroy  the  bridge,  if  the  speed  was 
limited,  as  it  is  there. 

Q.  Then  you  think  that  taking  out  a  post  from  the  Haverhill  bridge 
would  not  b3  likely  to  bring  the  bridge  down?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don't 
think  it  would,  —  any  one^  post,  except  the  end  post. 

Q.  But  you  have  stated  in  relation  to  the  joint-block  which  is  c  n- 
nected  to  these  floor  beams  by  means  of  its  hangers,  that  if  the  joint 
block  were  knocked  upwards,  it  would  turn  upon  the  pin  through  the 
floor  beams  as  a  pivot?     A.    If  the  truss  were  dislocated,  of  course. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  please  explain  how  that  can  be  without  producing 
a  big  leverage  and  straining  the  links?  A.  If  there  was  any  great 
force  applied  by  which  it  was  torn,  there  would  be  great  force  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  pin  ;  but  I  do  not  see  how  any  such  force  could  be 
exerted  except  by  a  very  heavy  weight.  After  the  truss  was  dis- 
located the  weight  of  the  joint  block  would  not  be  sufficient  to  break 
the  links.  That  would  be  the  only  force  that  could  act  after  the  truss 
was  dislocated. 

Q.  That  joint  block  could  not  turn  upon  that  pin  as  a  pivot,  except 
by  force,  could  it?     A.    It  could  not  turn  far;  no. 


APPENDIX.  397 

Q.   And  a  violent  force  ?     A.    That  would  depend  upon   bow  tight 

it  was  coupled. 

Q.  Assuming  that  the  top  of  the  floor  beam  was  in  immediate  con- 
tact with  the  joint?  A.  If  it  was  a  tight  joint  it  could  not  turn  upon 
it,  but  its  own  weight  would  not  be  sufficient  to  break  the  links. 

Q.  And  it  could  not  turn  any  appreciable  distance,  could  it,  without 
bringing  a  heavy  leverage  upon  the  pin,  and  of  course  a  consequent 
strain  upon  the  links?  A.  No;  it  could  not  turn  far  if  it  was  in 
immediate  contact. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  observed  the  behavior  of  iron  under  strain  where 
the  strain  was  sufficient  to  rupture  it?  A.  Oh,  yes,  sir  ;  I  have  broken 
a  great  deal  of  iron  in  testing  machines. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  noticed  the  effect  upon  the  pin?  A.  I  have 
never  broken  it  by  means  of  pins  in  links,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Then,  have  you  any  opinion  as  to  what  the  effect  would  be 
upon  the  pin?  A.  It  would  depend  entirely  upon  the  bearing  sur- 
face of  the  pin  in  relation  to  the  parts  which  yield. 

Q.  Assuming  it  to  be  a  perfectly  sheer  strain,  not  a  bending  strain  ? 
A.  I  say  it  would  depend  upon  the  amount  of  resistance  in  the  parts 
which  yield.  If  the  bearing  surface  of  the  pin  were  ample  to  break 
the  part  which  actually  does  yield,  that  part  would  be  fractured  ;  but 
if  too  small  to  do  that  injury,  such  bearing  surface  would  be  indented. 

Q.  You  would  not  be  surprised  to  see  an  indentation  on  the  pin? 
A.  No  ;  I  think  it  might  result  in  good  work.  If  brought  to  fracture 
b}'  over-strain  I  think  there  might  be  such  indenture  in  the  pin. 

Q.  Could  you  state  how  much  of  an  indentation  you  would  expect 
to  see?     A.    I  should  expect  to  see  flexure  rather  than  indentation. 

Q.  Assume,  if  you  please,  that  the  pin  is  in  solid  hearings  close  to 
the  bar?     A.    "Where  flexure  would  be  out  of  the  question? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Well,  the  amount  of  indentation  would  depend 
entirely  upon  the  resistance  developed  by  such  indentation  compared 
with  the  resistance  developed  in  the  fracture;  the  ratio  of  the  power 
of  resistance  at  those  two  points. 

Q.  With  pins  and  bars  properly  proportioned  to  each  other,  would 
you  expect  to  see  any  indentation  in  the  pin  unless  there  was  an 
undue  strain  brought  upon  the  bar?     A.    No  ;  I  should  not. 

Q.  Now,  to  apply  it  to  this  particular  case,  if  the  pin  which  was  :it 
the  lower  end  of  those  hangers  does  show  material  indentations,  would 
not  that  convey  to  your  mind,  or  would  it  not  be  some  evidence  to 
your  mind,  that  those  bars  had  been  unduly  strained ?  A.  No.  I 
think  I  saw  the  symptoms  which  you  call  indentations.  I  referred 
them  to  another  cause.     I  may  be  wrong. 

Q.  I  should  be  glad  to  know  what  that  came  is.  A.  Well,  there 
has  been  a  slight  chafing  upon   that   pin,  and  I  should   think  it  might 


308  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

be  the  effect  of  abrasion.  The  eyes  were  so  placed  that  they  would 
collect  all  the  sand  and  dust  that  was  kicked  up  by  the  train,  and 
there  would  be  a  slight  abrasion  from  motion. 

Q.  In  which  direction  could  there  be  motion?  A.  Well,  which- 
ever way  would  be  allowed  by  the  other  parts  of  the  structure.  I 
cannot  tell,  now  that  it  has  all  tumbled  to  pieces,  but  I  think  the  pin 
and  the  link  both  show  signs  of  abrasion. 

Q.  Suppose  the  I  beams  upon  which  those  links  were  came  close  up 
against  the  links,  so  that  there  was  no  room  for  motion  endwise  on 
the  pin?  A.  Well,  there  might  have  been  room  for  motion  endwise 
of  the  floor  beam,  and  the  floor  beam  may  have  moved  sidewise 
slightly. 

Q.  Assume,  if  you  please,  that  that  is  rigid?  A.  If  it  could  not 
move,  it  could  not  abrade. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  sufficiently  to  know  whether  there  was  any 
chance  for  motion  or  not?     A.    No.     I  merely  saw  signs  of  abrasion. 

Mr.  Hewins.  I  don't  know  as  it  is  proper  for  me  to  state  that 
there  was  no  such  room  ;  that  the  links  filled  the  space  entirely 
between  the  beams,  and  the  beams  were  so  secured  to  the  casting 
that  there  was  no  chance  for  the  beams  to  m  ive. 

Q.  In  that  case  would  you  not,  if  you  had  ever  seen  pins  receive 
such  indentations  from  strains,  think  that  that  might  reasonably  be,  the 
cause?  A.  Well,  if  it  was  impossible  to  have  the  effect  of  abrasion, 
I  should  attribute  it  to  over-pressure. 

Q.  Have  you  noticed  the  marks'  that  were  on  the  top  of  the  top 
chord?.    A.    The  scratches,  you  mean,  of  the  member? 

Q     Yes.     A.    Yes. 

Q.  Can  you  account  for  them?  A.  Yes;  I  think  some  part  of  a 
car  body  scraped  against  it  as  it  was  moving  along  before  the  truss 
fell. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  body  of  a  car  was  there  that  could  have  made 
the  marks?  A.  Well,  the  car-truss  attachments  to  the  car  body 
would  be  directly  over  that  chord,  I  believe,  the  heavy  bolts  to  which 
the  car  body  truss  is  attached. 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  those  parts  which  broke  the  piece  off  from 
the  casting?  A.  I  could  not  answer  that  question  without  looking 
again  at  the  casting,  because  I  did  not  have  it  in  mind  when  I  have 
observed  it.  I  have  forgotten  exactly  where  on  the  casting  the  points 
were  broken  off. 

Mr.  Hewins.  It  seeni3  to  me  important  that  it  should  be  ascer- 
tained, if  possible,  what  did  make  those  marks  on  the  top  chord,  and 
then  whether  that  may  have  been,  perhaps  or  probably,  the  cause  of 
the  injury  to  the  casting. 

The  Witness.     I  think  very  probably  it  may  have  been  one  thing 


APPENDIX.  390 

or  another  thing.  I  don't  know  what  importance  can  attach  to  the 
fact  whether  it  was  one  thing  or  another. 

Mr.  Hewins.  They  being  in  the  same  direct  line,  it  might  perhaps 
be  assumed  that  it  was  the  same  thing,  in  the  absence  of  any  other 
information. 

Q.  Is  your  estimate  of  the  strength  of  those  hangers  based  upon 
any  actual  experiment,  or  merely  upon  theory?  A.  No;  merely 
upon  what  I  know  of  the  resisting  power  of  iron. 

Mr.  Hewins.  I  would  like  to  renew  the  suggestion  that  I  made 
yesterday,  that  two  hangers  or  tension  bars  be  m  ide,  one  with  straight 
eyes  and  one  with  eccentric  eyes,  and  taken  to  Watertown  and  tested. 
I  think  you  will  find  quite  a  different  result  from  what  has  been  stated. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  strength  of  a  bar 
with  eyes  vertically  under  each  other,  is  there? 

Mr.  Hewins.  The  evidence  here,  as  I  understand  it,  has  been  more 
a  comparison  between  two  eyes,  —  how  much  stronger  one  would  be 
than  the  other,  —  and  I  think  the  only  way  of  getting  a  satisfactory 
result  would  be  by  making  two  bars. 

The  Chairman.  The  commissioners  propose  to  ask  that  this  hanger 
that  is  not  broken  shall  be  tested.  I  do  not  think  it  is  worth  while  to 
have  another  hanger  made. 

Mr.  Hewins.  That  is  entirely  for  you  to  decide,  of  course.  This 
hanger  which  now  appears  to  be  whole  evidently  has  been  over- 
strained, and  might  not  show  when  it  is  tested  as  good  as  if  it  had 
not  been  over- strained. 

The  Chairman.  How  could  it  have  been  over-strained?  Do  you 
want  to  have  that  joint  block  brought  here  and  examined? 

Mr.  Hewins.  Perhaps  it  could  be  more  easily  done  by  going  to 
the  place  where  it  is. 

Mr.  P1111.BRICK.     I  think  it  weighs  nearly  half  a  ton. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  examined  carefully,  Mr.  Phil- 
brick,  the  character  of  those  indentations  on  the  joint  block?  A.  I 
saw  a  little  piece  broken  off  of  it  about  as  large  as  my  two  fingers, 
very  near  the  corner,  but  I  do  not  remember  definitely  whether  it  was 
exactly  in  line  with  the  scratch  on  the  top  chord.  That  was  what 
Mr.  Hewins  asked  me,  which  I  was  unable  to  answer.  It  is  on  the 
inside  of  the  bar,  however,  next  the  train. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  I  suppose  you  would  think.  Mi'.  Philbrick, 
that  the  blow  that  knocked  that  bridge  down  was  a  blow  on  that  eat- 
ing, very  likely?     A.    Either  on  that  easting  or  veiy   near  it. 

Q.  The  most  effective  blow  to  knock  the  bridge  down  would  In-  one 
on  that  casting?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  it  might  have  been  by  a  blow 
within  a  foot  or  two  on  either  side. 


400  BUSSEY   BRIDGE  DISASTER. 

Q.  Would  not  that  show  a  dent  on  the  truss?  A.  Oh,  there  are  a 
good  many  dents  on  the  truss. 

Q.  Sufficient  dents  to  be  the  marks  of  the  blow  that  knocked  the 
bridge  down?  A.  Yes,  sir.  I  don't  think  it  would  make  much  of  a 
dent  if  it  were  wood.  Wood  would  not  indent  iron.  Wood  might 
not  have  left  any  very  marked  trace  upon  that  mass  behind  it.  A. 
dent  would  merely  show  what  made  the  breakage,  whether  it  was  iron 
or  wood. 

Mr.  Hewins.  I  think  that  casting  and  the  chord  which  rested 
against  it  should  be  examined  so  as  to  have  their  relations  clearly 
understood.     It  is  hardly  practicable  to  bring  the  chord  here. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  desire  to  close  the  hearing 
to-day,  if  possible.  If  you  desire,  Mr.  Hewins,  that  Mr.  Philbrick 
and  Mr.  Doane  should  examine  that,  we  will  ask  them  to  do  so  before 
Monday  and  report  then  ;  but  I  think  that  the  examination  might  go 
on  to-day  independently  of  that  question  and  simply  hear  their  report 
upon  it  on  Monday. 

Mr.  Putnam.  How  about  the  tests  of  those  links?  Would  you 
have  those  tests  made  without  suspending  the  hearing  for  the  result? 

The  Chairman.  I  thought  it  could  be  put  in  as  so  much  evidence 
after  the  hearing  is  over. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  do  not  care.  I  thought,  perhaps,  }-ou  would  have 
that  done  before  the  hearing  was  closed  ;  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  If  there  should  be  anything  developed  in  regard 
to  that  which  necessitated  the  reopening  of  the  hearing,  it  could  be 
reopened  ;  but  we  would  like  to  have  it  considered  that  the  hearing 
was  practically  closed  to-day.  I  think  that  these  questions  in  regard 
to  the  joint  block  are,  perhaps,  a  waste  of  time  uutil  the  experts  have 
made  a  special  examination  of  it.  Therefore,  we  will  discontinue 
that  line  of  inquiry  at  the  present  time  and  give  Mr.  Hewins  an 
opportunity  to  ask  the  experts  some  questions  on  Monday  morning, 
if  he  desires  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Philbrick.  I  cannot  tell  how  this  opening  was  occasioned  on 
the  sound  hanger,  but  it  may  have  been  by  some  illegitimate  strain 
during  the  fall. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Can  you  imagine  any  illegitimate  strain 
that  could  have  come  upon  that  s  und  hanger?  A.  Yes  ;  the  same  as 
the  one  upon  the  one  that  is  broken. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  You  say  that  it  was  the  effect  of  some 
illegitimate  strain  during  the  fall:  where  does  that  show?  In  the 
opening  of  the  weld?  A.  In  the" opening  of  the  weld.  One  of  these 
hangers  may  have  received  more  strain  than  the  other,  and  I  think 
would  have  done  so  by  the  leverage,  if  there  were  any. 


APPENDIX.  401 

Q.   Is  that  a  new  opening  of  the  weld  there?     (Referring  to  "  S.") 
A.    I  cannot  tell  from  this  examination. 

Recess  until  2.30. 


AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

Professor  Swain  —  recalled. 
Q.    (By  the  Chairman.)     Have  you   made  an  estimate   as  to  how 
fast  a  train  starting  from  Roslindale,  on  the  grade  between   R 
dale  and  the  bridge,  would  get  going  at  the  time  it  struck  the  b 
provided  the  brakes  were  not  working  against  the  wheels?     A.    Yes, 
sir ;  I  have  made  an  estimate  this  morning. 

Q.  What  was  your  method  of  calculation  and  what  is  the  result? 
A.  Well,  sir,  1  took  the  grade  at  fifty  feet  to  the  mile,  as  given  me 
by  Mr.  Doane,  and  assumed  the  resistance  of  the  train  at  ten  pounds 
to  the  ton,  which  is  the  average  figure  assumed  by  engineers  :  and  on 
that  basis  the  result  gives  a  velocity  of  about  twenty-one  miles  an 
hour  that  that  train  would  have  attained  under  the  force  of  gravity 
alone,  and  the  resistance,  without  the  use  of  steam  or  brakes. 

Q.  Does  that  allow  for  any  of  the  brakes  being  out  of  order  and 
clinging  to  the  wheels,  or  anything  of  that  sort?  A.  No,  sir:  it  is 
simply  taking  the  average  resistance  of  a  train  moving  at  the  average 
velocity.  I  think  it  is  fully  large  enough  in  this  case,  because  this 
figure  of  ten  pounds  a  ton  is  based  on  a  velocity  of  about  thirty  or 
thirty-five  miles  an  hour.  The  resistance  of  a  moving  train  ini 
with  the  velocity,  and  at  thirty  miles  an  hour  it  is  about  ten  pounds 
to  the  ton  on  a  straight  line.  I  have  taken  it  at  ten  pounds  to  the 
ton.  Of  course  if  the  brakes  were  on,  the  resistance  would  be  in- 
creased. There  is  a  slight  increase  in  the  resistance  due  to  curvature, 
but  that  is  very  small.  I  have  considered  that  ten  pounds  per  ton 
would  be  sufficient  to  include  that.  The  resistance  of  curvature,  if  I 
remember  right,  is  about  half  a  pound  per  ton  per  degree  of  curva- 
ture. That  curve  there  is,  on  the  average,  1  think,  about  a  two-de- 
gree curve;  itvaiies  from   point  to  point.     That  would  mak< e 

pound  due  to  curvature.     I   think   that  nine  pounds  at  a  velocity  of 
twenty  miles  an   hour  would  be  sufficient  for  the   resistance  on  a 
straight  line,  so  that  ten   pounds  is  sufficient  for  both.     I  give  these 
figures  from  memory,  but  1  think  Mr.  Philbrick  and  Mr.  Doane 
agree  with  me. 

Q.  Of  course  any  imperfectly  working  brake,  any  brake  that  rubbed 
against  the  wheels,  would   throw  that  out?     A.    Would  increase  the 


402  BUSSEY    BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

friction  and  make  the  velocity  correspondingly  less.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  steam  were  used  it  would  increase  the  velocity. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  You  assume  that  the  train  is  at  a  stand- 
still at  Pvoslindale?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    And  on  a  down  grade?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  And  that  the  brakes  are  removed  and  it  is  allowed  to  start? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  say  that  by  the  time  it  reached  this  bridge  it  would  have 
acquired  a  speed  of  twenty  miles  an  hour?  A.  Under  these  data; 
yes,  sir.  Mr.  Doane  has  given  me  the  distance  from  the  station  to 
the  bridge. 

Q.  Does  the  number  of  cars  enter  into  the  calculation?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  it  simply  depends  upon  the  resistance  in  pounds  per  ton. 

Q.  That  is,  one  car  would  get  the  same  speed-  that  a  long  train 
would?  A.  Yes,  sir,  provided  the  resistance  were  the  same  in  either 
case. 

Q.  The  weight  of  a  single  car  affects  the  engine,  does  it  not?  A. 
Simply  the  grade. 

Q.  That  is,  the  locomotive  would  go  no  faster  than  one  of  the  cars? 
A.    No,  sir  ;  simply  the  grade. 

Q.  Does  not  a  good  deal  of  friction  enter  into  this  calculation?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  This  friction  causes  the  retardation,  and  the  resistance  is 
estimated  at  about  ten  pounds  to  the  ton  on  a  straight  line.  That  is, 
if  a  locomotive  is  pulling  a  train  it  would  have  to  exert  a  force  of 
about  ten  pounds  for  every  ton  it  pulls  to  keep  in  motion  at  a  velocity 
of  twenty  miles  an  hour. 

Q.  Then  the  weight  of  the  locomotive  and  train  does  not  enter  into 
the  speed  it  would  attain?  A.  No,  sir;  it  does  not  enter  into  the 
question  at  all.  A  pound  weight  will  fall  with  just  the  same  velocity 
as  a  ten  pound  weight. 

Q.  Certainly  it  will,  if  gravity  only  is  involved  ;  but  when  friction  is 
involved  does  it  not  make  a  difference?  A.  No,  sir.  The  resistance 
is  taken  as  so  much  per  ton,  so  that  one  ton  would  move  just  as  fast 
as  two  tons. 

Thomas  Doane  —  sworn. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  Your  residence?  A.  Charlestown, 
Mass. 

Q.  And  your  occupation?  A.  That  of  civil  engineer  and  sur- 
veyor. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  education  and  experience  as  civil  engineer 
and  surveyor?  A.  My  scholastic  opportunities  were  slight.  I  at- 
tended school  in  my  native  town  on  Cape  Cod  until  nineteen  years 
of  age  at  a  private  academy  ;  then  through  five  terms,  at  the  English 


APPENDIX.  U)3 

Seminary  nt  Andover,  Phillips  Academy.  I  entered  tho  o!li<v  of 
Mr.  Felton  in  Charlestown  in  1842.  I  began  my  engineering  expe- 
rience by  grading  the  streets,  ami  putting  in  the  stone  steps  and  ir  >n 
fence  about  Bnnker  Hill  Monument,  and  there  kindled  the  B 
patriotism,  perhaps.  I  then  went  on  to  the  Fitchburg  Railroad  as 
rodman.  and  was  there  during  its  construction.  After  that  was  com- 
pleted I  went  on  to  the  Vermont  Central  Railroad,  in  charge  of  a 
division.  I  took  my  pay  in  stock  of  the  Vermont  Central  Railroad, 
and  lost  my  first  earnings,  about  $1,000.  But  it  taught  me  a  good 
lesson  in  money  matters.  I  then  went  on  to  the  Cheshire  Railroad, 
in  1847.  and  was  there  until  1849.  in  charge  of  a  division  ;  ami  at 
that  time  made  my  first  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Pbilbriek,  who  was 
then  on  an  adjoining  division  of  the  Rutland  Railroad.  I  then  came 
to  Charlestown  and  Boston,  and  opened  an  office  for  general  business, 
where  I  have  had  charge  of  street  work,  sewer  work,  gas  works, 
bridge  building,  pile-bridge  building,  etc  ;  a  general  miscellaneous 
business,  with  a  good  deal  of  land  surveying,  in  1863  I  went  to  the 
Hoosac  Tunnel  as  chief  engineer,  remained  there  four  years,  going 
through  the  experimental  part  of  that  work.  I  then,  through  political 
influence  chiefly,  left  the  Tunnel  and  went  to  Nebraska,  where  I  spent 
four  years  in  extending  the  C.  B.  &  Q.  system  into  the  State  of 
Nebraska,  building  about  240  miles  of  railroad,  and  acting  both  as 
chief  engineer  and  superintendent.  I  returned  from  Nebraska  in 
1873.  and  was  appointed  consulting  engineer  of  the  Hoosac  Tunnel 
and  Troy  &  Greenfield  Railroad.  I  had  to  do  with  finishing  the  tun- 
nel, and  ran  the  first  locomotive  through  it;  and  remained  on  tho 
road  about  four  years,  completing  the  widening  and  reconstruction  of 
the  Troy  &  Greenfield  Railroad.  Soon  after  that,  in  1879,  I  was 
appointed  consulting  engineer  and  acting  chief  engineer  of  the  North- 
em  Pacific  Railroad  ;  and  I  was  on  the  line  of  that  road  for  a  year, 
locating  one  or  two  of  its  principal  divisions.  I  then  returned,  in 
1880-81,  to  my  oflice  practice.  I  have  hem  engaged  in  that  sub- 
stantially ever  since.  My  work  has  been  largely,  perhaps,  in  c  >n- 
nection  with  railroads.  1  have  been  fully  occupied,  I  think,  all  of 
the  time;  and  in  connection  with  experience,  these  has  been,  of 
course,  a  contemporaneous  study. 

Q.  How  far  have  you  been  engaged  in  bridge  building?  A.  I 
have  had  to  do  with  the  erection  of  a  great  many  bridges  —  screw- 
pile  bridges,  Howe  truss,  wooden  truss  and  iron  bridges  — on  the 
various  public  works  with  which  I  have  been  connected. 

Q.   In  superintending  them,  or  in  what  capacity?     A.    In  superin- 
tending the  work  generally,  making  the   contracts  for  the   b 
and  in  superintending  their  erection,  and  in  judging  of  their  suffi- 
ciency after  completion.     I   have  not  set  myself  up  especially  as  an 


401  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

expert  in  bridge  building,  excepting  as  to  my  general   experience  in 
that  line. 

Q.  Have  you  been  emplojed  by  the  Commission  to  investigate  this 
accident?     A.    I  have. 

Q.  At  what  time?  When  were  3*011  first  notified?  A.  I  think  I 
was  spoken  to  on  the  afternoon  of  Monday,  the  day  of  the  accident, 
and  went  out  to  the  scene  of  the  accident,  I  think,  by  the  10.05  train, 
Tuesday  morning. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  you  found,  what  sort  of  an  examination 
you  made,  and  what  the  results  of  your  examination  were?  A.  I 
encountered  a  rope  drawn  round  the  scene,  and  I  had  not  provided 
myself  with  a  pass  from  the  commissioners,  but  a  policeman  happened 
to  know  me  and  let  me  through,  and  I  proceeded  to  examine  the 
bridge  ;  first,  as  to  the  character  of  its  construction  before  it  fell,  and 
I  then  made  an  examination  of  the  various  parts  of  the  bridge.  The 
south,  or  right-hand  truss  (perhaps  I  will  speak  of  it  as  the  Boston 
end  and  Dec] ham  end,  and  right  and  left  hand)  — 

Q.  Right  and  left  hand  coming  in?  A.  Coming  in.  The  charac- 
ter of  the  right-hand  truss  was  evident;  it  was  plainly  to  be  seen 
from  the  wreck.  The  other  truss  was  more  or  less  covered  up  bjr  the 
cars,  track,  etc.  ;  but  I  soon  found  the  nature  of  the  bridge.  One  of 
the  early  things  I  discovered  was  the  skew-back  at  the  top  of  the 
northerly  inclined  post,  which  was  lying  on  the  right-hand  side  of  its 
location  in  the  bridge,  quite  a  little  distance  away,  ten  or  twelve  feet, 
I  should  say,  and  about  eight  feet  from  the  northerl}-  or  Boston  abut- 
ment. I  examined  the  two  hangers  which  were  enclosed  in  this 
casting,  and  which  are  here  marked,  I  think,  "  X"  and  •'  Y."  I  could 
see  the  breaks  by  looking  in  at  the  top  end,  as  it  lay,  and  I  put  in  my 
hand  and  felt  the  breaks,  but  I  didn't  look  in  at  the  other  end  which 
was  near  the  ground.  I  soon  found  what  duty  these  hangers  were  to 
perform,  and  that  one  end  of  a  floor  beam  was  hung  upon  them..  I 
very  soon  asceitained  the  dimensions  of  the  bridge  by  measuring  the 
inclined  post  and  the  top  chord,  and  also  by  measuring  the  length  of 
the  bottom  chord.  I  found  the  panels  to  be  twenty-live  feet  long, 
and  the  whole  length  of  the  truss  from  e;  d  to  end  one  hundred  and 
four  feet.  I  measured  the  length  of  a  floor  beam,  which  went  entirely 
across,  and  ascertained  the  breadth  of  the  bridge  from  truss  to  truss 
to  be  twenty  feet;  the  height  of  the  right-hand  truss,  the  Parker 
tnis-s  to  be  thirteen  feet  from  centre  to  centre  of  the  pins;  the 
height  of  the  Ilewins  truss  I  have  not  estimated  exactly  ;  but  it  is 
somewhere  between  sixteen  and  seventeen  feet,  I  think.  One  of 
the  early  points  in  my  investigation  was  an  examination  of  the 
tics  on  the  Dtdham  end  of  the  bridge,  that  part  of  the  bridge 
which  had  not  been  destroyed.     These  ties  were  still  attached  to  their 


APPENDIX.  405 

wooden  stringers,  for  some  distance  down  the  incline,  from  the 
Dedham  abutment  to  the  ground.  A  good  many  more  of  the  ties 
were  under  the  car  which  hud  not  fallen  to  pieces  ;  all  of  these  tics  I 
examined.  1  could  find  no  evidence  of  derailment  up  to  that  point. 
By  measurements,  I  got  an  idea  of  the  Boor  system,  and  made  draw- 
ings and  measurements  of  most  of  the  important  pints  of  the  bridge. 
I  have  made  no  computation  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  Hewins  tru68. 
My  impression  was  that  it  was  sufficient  as  to  its  ch  irds.  I  made  up 
my  mind  that  the  hangers  broke  under  the  weight  of  the  locomotive, 
and  that  that  was  the  original  first  cause  of  the  accident.  I  judged 
from  the  appearance  of  things,  from  the  way  the  cars  were  thrown 
upon  the  Boston  abutment,  that  the  speed  of  the  train  must  have 
been,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  two  or  three  times  as  great  as  has  been 
stated  here,  —  from  thirty  to  forty  miles  an  hour.  The  fact  that  the 
train  was  so  splintered,  and  that  so  many  of  the  cars  went  ashore,  led 
me  to  feel  that  there  must  be  some  mistake  about  the  speed,  <>r  Bonio 
misunderstanding.  Another  thing  as  to  the  speed,  I  suppose  that 
the  snap  that  Mr.  Billings,  the  fireman,  heard  was  the  break  of  this 
hanger  which  has  been  shown  here ;  and  the  space  that  elapsed 
between  the  breaking  of  this  hanger,  provided  it  were  under  the 
middle  of  the  driving  wheels  of  the  engine,  and  the  time  when  the 
forward  truck  of  the  second  car  reached  the  broken  banger,  was  a 
distance  of  seventy-eight  feet.  There  would  be  about  seven  feet 
between  the  centre  of  the  two  locomotive  wheels  and  its  junction  with 
the  tender.  The  tender  is  about  eighteen  feet  long;  the  next  car, 
the  first  car  in  the  train,  about  fifty-one  feet  long;  and  some  three 
feet  more  to  the  forward  truck  of  the  second  car.  This  forward  truck 
still  had  a  distance  of  twenty-two  feet  to  travel  from  the  broken 
hanger  to  the  abutment,  making  a  total  distance  of  one  hundred  feet. 
An  axle  has  been  spoken  of  by  some  of  the  witnesses  as  having 
been  bent.  That  was  shown  to  me  by  Mr.  Richards  in  the  Roxbury 
shop  yard.  The  axle  was  bent  very  near  the  wheel.  It  could  not 
have  been  bent  by  any  contact  with  a  rail,  in  my  judgment.  In  the 
same  plane  in  which  this  axle  is  bent  there  was  a  tearing  of  the  flange 
of  the  wheel  for  about  one  foot  in  its  circumference,  and  it  evidently 
had  been  in  contact  with  the  abutment  of  the  bridge  ;  and,  as  I  under- 
stand, this  wheel  and  truck  went  ashore.  There  is  B  distance  of  one 
hundred  feet  traversed  from  the  time  the  hanger  broke  until  that  car 
wheel  struck  the  abutment  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  it  could  not  have  been 
a  great  many  seconds  in  doing  it.  1  think  that  as  Boon  as  the  banger 
gave  way,  the  floor  beam  which  it  sustained  gave  way.  and  its  left 
end  settled  down,  while  still  upheld  at  its  right-hand  end  resting  upon 
the  abutment;  that  this  gave  a  lurch  to  the  train  towards  the  left, 
and   probably  at  about  the   time  the  rear  truck  of  the  forward  car 


406  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

crossed  it,  as  it  seeins  to  me.  I  think  that  then  this  front  car  was 
going  up  hill  from  the  wreck,  and  that  when  it  crossed  the  face  of  the 
abutment  its  front  truck  threw  down  the  right-hand  rail  upon  its  side  ; 
that  then  that  front  truck  was  derailed  and  passed  over  to  the  south 
side  of  the  track.  I  judge  that  this  was  the  case,  because  the  other 
end  was  thrown  to  the  left.  That  would  give  the  car  as  a  whole,  with 
its  momentum,  a  tendency  to  the  right  haul  of  the  track,  where  it 
finally  landed.  My  impression  is  that,  while  crossing  this  chasm  at 
the  hangers,  the  rear  truck  of  that  front  car  was  dropped  out  of  its 
place.  The  king  bolts  of  the  cars  are  somewhere  about  three  feet 
long.  I  don't  suppose  that  it  dropped  far  enough  to  let  it  entirely 
out ;  but  if  it  dropped  a  foot,  or  less  perhaps,  it  would  be  easily  bent, 
and  the  car  would  let  go  its  truck.  I  think  those  trucks  probably  g<>t 
crosswise  of  the  track,  and  that  that,  with  the  oilier  or  front  truck, 
threw  down  the  right-hand  rail  upon  its  side,  towards  the  right. 
As  to  the  bending  of  the  two  rails  which  were  involved  in  this 
calamity  at  this  end  of  the  train,  it  seems  to  me  that  they  could  not 
have  been  bent  into  this  shape  b}*  being  caught  in  any  way  in  the 
ti  ticks  or  wreck,  and  so  pushed  up  into  the  shape  in  which  we  find 
them.  If  they  had,  I  think  those  Dedham  ends  would  have  been 
crooked,  vertically  or  otherwise  ;  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  six  or 
eight  feet  of  those  rails  at  that  end  are  still  straight.  Another  reason 
why  I  think  so  is  that  those  rails  were  bent  in  opposite  directions, 
which  could  not  have  been  the  case  on  this  supposition,  for  they  were 
tied  together  by  ties,  which  would  oblige  them  to  open  and  shut  like 
a  parallel  ruler  until  their  spikes  gave  way.  I  think  the  right-hand 
rail  was  thrown  on  its  side  towards  the  right,  bent  over  the  edge  of 
the  abutment,  and  hammered  by  the  trucks  and  car  bodies  until  it  was 
bent  down  into  the  ruin  below  and  broken  off  at  the  edge  of  the  abut- 
u  ent.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  other  rail,  this  left-hand  rail,  being  still 
fast  on  the  Boston  shore,  and  being  against  the  truss  of  the  bridge,  or 
nearly  so  (perhaps  quite  so),  near  its  Dedham  end,  that  the  train 
pressed  against  its  middle  part,  and  pushed  it  over  to  the  left ;  and 
the  cars,  one  after  another,  were  thrown  into  this  sack  formed  by  this 
rail,  and  so  it  was  bent  into  the  shape  in  which  we  find  it. 
It  is  my  impression  that  the  couplings  of  those  cars  would  carry  a 
ear  without  its  truck;  that  is,  that  a  car  having  its  trucks 
would  carry  the  next  car  without  its  adjoining  truck.  The  Miller 
couplings  are  hooked  together.  They  are  made  very  strong.  They 
are  kept  in  hook  by  means  of  very  strong  springs  at  the  inner  en  Is 
of  each,  pulling  against  the  hooks  to  keep  them  in  place.  I  think 
there  are  also  springs  crosswise  to  keep  them  in  hook  also,  for  we 
know  that  it  takes  the  whole  strength  of  a  man  oftentimes,  and  some- 
times of  two,  to  unhook  a  Miller  coupling  ;  so  that  under  any  circum- 


APPENDIX.  407 

stances  it  would  be  almost  impossible  for  tbe  books  to  slip  up  and 
down  out  of  each  other,  because  of  the  firm  manner  in  which  tbey  are 
held  together;  and,  being  so  strong,  I  think  they  would  help  to 
the  train  connected,  and  drag  the  various  parts  along  until  some  part 
of  them  went  against  tbe  abutment.  I  think  that  the  bridge,  by  the 
inclination  of  tbe  floor  system  towards  the  left,  allowed  the  train  to 
sag  down  against  the  tup  chord  of  tbe  left-hand  truss  and  against  this 
skew-back,  which  is  at  tbe  top  of  tbe  inclined  post.  Some  parts  ..f 
the  car  bo:lies,  some  parts  of  the  boxes  of  tbe  journals  of  thi 
and  perhaps  some  parts  of  the  treads  of  the  wheels  even,  may  have 
passed  over  that  corner  of  this;  casting  which  was  adj  >ining 
towards  tbe  Dedham  end.  The  break  of  that  easting  is  of  this  sort. 
There  is  a  flange  on  that  edge,  which  I  should  think  was  an  inch  to  an 
inch  and  a  quarter  thick,  with  an  elevation  over  the  rest  of  the  casting 
of  perhaps  an  inch  to  an  inch  and  a  half.  That  was  torn  away,  eaten 
away,  —  "  chawed  off,"  to  use  a  slang  phrase,  —  not  by  any  one  Mow. 
but  by,  I  think,  numerous  blows,  for  a  distance  of  four  inches  parallel 
with  the  track,  and  to  a  depth  of  perhaps  one  inch  at  the  Dedham 
end  of  tbe  casting,  on  which  the  ruins  of  the  train  would  impinge. 
It  was  not  a  clean  fracture,  evidently  was  not  broken  off  by  one  blow. 
The  lower  truss  chords  were  found  out  of  place  somewhat.  They  lie 
to  the  right  hand  of  their  position  in  the  bridge  before  it  fell,  and  I 
think  they  were  pulled  into  that  position  by  the  horizontal  connection 
of  the  chord  with  the  abutment  at  that  point.  There  is  an  I  beam 
connecting  that  joint  with  the  abutment,  and,  I  think,  as  it  fell  it 
revolved  on  this  abutment  as  a  centre  until  it  landed  the  chord  in  the 
street  where  it  was  found. 

Q.  Did  the  transverse  bracing  tend  to  cany  that  chord  to  the  right? 
A.  Wherever  it  was  connected  with  the  lower  chord  of  the  Parker 
truss  it  would  have  that  effect,  because  I  suppose  the  northerly  truss 
gave  way  first,  and  its  fall  dragged  the  other  down.  I  examined  the 
floor  system  as  well  as  I  could,  and  measured  the  location  of  the  \[<-s 
upon  the  rail  stringers,  and  took  notes  of  all  I  could  find.  I  measured 
tbe  lengths  of  the  longest  ties  with  the  guard  rail  upon  them,  —  or 
rather  guard  timber,  there  were  no  guard  rails  properly,  —  which  I 
can  give  you  if  you  wish. 

Q.  You  need  not  give  us  the  particulars  with  reference  to  each 
rail,  but  sufficient  to  show  what  you  have,  and  then  state  what  the 
general  result  is  and  how  accurately  you  made  the  measurements? 
A.    I   made    the    measurements  exactly,    within    half    an    inc  I 

measured  twenty-two  ties.  Perhaps  I  should  state  that  they  were  not 
probably  twenty-two  independent  ties.  They  may  have  hen  the  two 
ends,  in  some  cases,  of  the  same  tie  ;  but  they  represenl  jusl  as  truly 
the   sizes  of  the  ties  and  the  spaces  apart.     I  measured  22  ties, 


40S  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

14  of  which  wore  8  inches  wide  and  8  of  which  were  10  inches  wide, 
and  they  were  all  6  inches  thick.  I  measured  22  spaces  between  the 
tics,  — not  from  centre  to  centre,  but  between  the  ties.  These  22 
spaces  averaged  1.22  feet,  or  about  15  inches.  The  least  space  in 
any  case  was  a  distance  of  .95  of  a  foot,  and  the  greatest  was  1.50 
feet,  —  18  inches.  These  ties  extended  over  fully  one-half,  I  should 
think,  of  the  length  of  the  bridge.  The  others  were  so  involved  in 
the  wreck  and  so  broken  up  that  I  could  form  no  judgment  as  to  any 
derailment.  I  suppose,  of  course,  there  must  have  been  a  derail- 
ment upon  at  least  all  that  part  of  the  bridge  north  —  that  is,  tow- 
ards Boston  —  of  the  broken  hangers,  but  I  could  ascertain  nothing. 
The  route  of  the  forward  trucks  of  the  first  car  upon  the  Boston 
abutment  could  be  plainly  seen  upon  the  ties  ;  at  the  edge  of  the 
abutment  I  could  see  they  were  six  inches  or  so  to  the  right  of  the 
track,  or  of  the  right-hand  rail. 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  guard  timbers?  A.  I  have  a  record  here  of 
one  tie,  six  by  ten  inches  ;  its  total  length  is  ten  feet  and  four  inches. 
The  distance  from  the  right-hand  end  of  it  to  the  right-hand  rail  was 
nineteen  inches,  and  this  end  had  no  guard  or  protection  of  any 
kind.  The  distance  between  the  rails,  from  centre  to  centre,  was 
four  feet  eleven  inches.  The  distance  from  the  left-hand  rail  to 
the  first  edge  of  the  guard  timber  was  thirty-four  inches,  and  the 
breadth  of  this  guard  timber  was  twelve  inches  and  its  height  was 
six  inches. 

Q.  Where  was  that,  —  on  what  portion  of  the  bridge?  A.  That 
was  on  the  part  of  the  bridge  towards  Dedham,  between  the  abut- 
ment and  the  top  chords  of  the  Hewins  truss. 

Q.  Can  you  state  where  the  guard  timber  was?  A.  Well,  sir,  I 
don't  think  I  have  any  record  of  that.  I  don't  know  that  I  measured 
it  at  all.  You  mean  the  four  by  eight  or  ten  guard  timber  which  has 
been  alluded  to? 

Q.  The  guard  timber  which  you  spoke  of  just  now.  A.  That  was 
on  the  outer  end  of  the  tie. 

Q.  Is  it  this  one  that  is  shown  on  the  photograph?  A.  It  is  the 
one  which  is  shown  on  the  Dedham  end  of  this  photograph  No.  5. 

Q.  Was  that  notched  down?  A.  I  think  it  was  not  notched.  It 
was  a  timber  which  had  been  used  somewhere  else  before.  It  had 
notches  in  it, — on  its  edge,  I  think;  but  my  impression  is  that  it 
wasn't  notched  down  on  the  ties. 

Q.  How  does  it  show  in  the  photograph?  A.  The  corresponding 
one  on  the  Boston  edge  of  the  bridge  is  not  notched  down,  but  it 
shows  some  old  notches  in  its  edge.  Evidently  it  had  been  used  in 
some  other  place  before. 

Q.    What  was  the  value  of  this  rail  in  that  place?     A.    Nothing, 


APPENDIX.  409 

sir,  except  to  hold  the  ties  endwise  of  the  bridge  Bomewhat.  It  had 
no  value  to  prevent  a  train  going  overboard,  or  to  hold  it  up  provided 
the  train  got  out  so  far  from  the  rails. 

Q.  Was  it  spiked  through  into  each  tie?  A.  My  impression  is 
that  there  were  screw  bolts,  perhaps  every  third  or  fourth  tie.  I  am 
not  quite  certain  about  that. 

Q.  Do  those  screw  bolts  show  in  this  picture?  A.  Yes,  Bir, 
they  do. 

Q.    Were  there  any  other  fastenings  on   the  intermediate  {':■ 
you  think,  or  do  you  know?     A.    I  should  judge  from  the  photograph 
that  every  second  or  third  one  was  bolted  with  a  screw   bolt,  bu!    as 
far  as  I  can  see  the  others  were  not.     They  may  have  been  bolted  by 
spike  bolts. 

Q.    Then,  about  other  guard  rails  or  guard  timbers?       A.    I  made 
no  measurement  of   any  others.     I  don't   remember  of  any  oth< 
But  it  has  been  said  that  there  were  timbers  called  guard  rails  adjoin- 
ing the  top  chord  of  this  left-hand  truss. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  that?  A.  Well,  sir.  I  think  I  did;  but  I 
don't  remember  enough  about  it  to  tell  you  its  size. 

Q.  Were  there  any  guard  rails?  A.  No  guard  rails.  If  you  mean 
iron  rails  laid  between  the  track,  there  were  none. 

Q.  Were  there  any  outside  the  track?  A.  None  outside. 
Q.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  floor  system  of  that  bridge  ?  Wae 
it  a  satisfactory  floor  system?  A.  It  was  not  a  satisfactory  floor 
system.  I  don't  think  it  was  calculated  in  any  way  to  carry  a  de- 
railed train  across,  but  rather  to  wreck  it  upon  the  bridge.  I  think 
such  a  timber  as  has  been  alluded  to,  four  inches  thick,  laid  near  the 
rail  is  worse  than  nothing;  better  have  been  away,  in  my  judgment. 
I  think  that  a  wooden  guard  of  that  sort  easily  catches  the  v^r  of  a 
wheel  and  gives  it  a  jerk,  a  yaw.  which  it  wouldn't  get  otherwise,  and 
makes  tkings  worse  instead  of  better. 

Q.  What  was  the  relative  height  of  the  track  and  the  top  of  the 
truss?  A.  They  were  just  about  on  the  same  level ;  must  have  been 
within  a  few  inches  of  the  same  level. 

Q.  Would  it  be  your  opinion  that,  if  a  train  got  derailed  on  the 
bridge,  that  three-inch  plank  at  the  side  of  the  track  woul  1  he  a  bene- 
(it  or  injury?  A.  So  long  as  the  wheels  were  al  aolutely  upon  it,  it 
might  carry  the  train  across.  Otherwise  it  could  have  no  beneficial 
effect,  as  it  seems  to  me,  unless  in  the  simple  matter  of  keeping  the 
ties  in  place.  And  it  would  have  no  efficiency  of  that  sort  where  the 
ties  are  placed  so  far  apart  as  they  were  on  this  bridge. 

Q.  If  the  train  got  derailed  and  the  wheels  on  the  left-hand  Bide 
of  the  car  got  up  on  to  that  plank,  where  would  the  wheels  on  the  right- 


410  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

hand  side  of  the  car  be?  A.  Well,  they  would  be  down  between  the 
ties  to  the  left  of  the  right-hand  rail. 

Q.  Was  there  any  plank  there  to  prevent  that  movement?  A. 
None  ;  that  is,  I  saw  none  ;  I  think  there  was  none. 

Q.  Would  they  settle  down  between  the  ties  and  bring  a  great 
strain  upon  the  ties  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  car?  A.  Certainly. 
A  wheel  of  thirty  inches  couldn't  roll  over  those  spaces  without  break- 
ing through,  it  seems  to  me  ;  either  breaking  through  between  the  ties 
or  pushing  them  up  together. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  many  railroad  bridges  in  this  State?  A. 
I  have  examined  a  good  many  bridges  ;  I  don't  think  very  many  iron 
bridges,  except  those  connected  with  the  Troy  &  Greenfield  Railroad. 

Q.  I  don't  refer  to  iron  bridges  particularly,  but  any  bridges? 
Have  you  examined  a  good  many  bridges  in  this  State  in  years  past? 
A.  I  have  been  familiar  with  almost  all  the  bridges  or  very  many  of 
the  bridges  in  this  State. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  bridge  in  this  State  with  a  floor  sys- 
tem as  poor  as  this  one?  A.  I  don't  remember  any,  sir;  I  don't 
think  I  ever  knew  a  floor  system  with  ties  so  far  apart. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  hangers.  In  the  first  place,  what  do 
you  say  in  regard  to  their  workmanship,  material,  etc.  ?  A.  Well, 
sir,  I  don't  think  them  a  good  specimen  of  blacksrnithing  ;  rather  poor. 
The  welding  must  have  been  indifferently  done  in  the  beginning.  I 
think  the  two  e}-es  were  made  separately  and  that  afterwards  the  two 
were  welded  together.  The  shank  of  the  links  seems  to  be  in  a  fair 
condition  now.  They  are  open  somewhat  at  the  weldings  in  places, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  iron  was  burned  in  the  welding.  The 
fact  that  the  supporting  part  of  the  link  was  not  under  the  supported 
part  attracted  my  attention  at  once  as  being  a  vety  unhappy  condi- 
tion of  things. 

Q.  What,  in  your  opinion,  was  the  effect  of  that?  A.  Tine  effect 
is  to  bring  a  cross  strain  upon  the  link  itself,  —  on  the  eyes  and  link. 
It  has  the  same  effect  upon  the  lower  eye  as  the  straightening  out  of 
a  hook  under  strain. 

Q.  With  the  shank  held  firmly?  A.  Yes,  sir;  the  hook,  as  it  is 
used  extensively  in  mechanics,  is  attached  to  a  chain.  The  hook  is 
so  turned  that  it  hangs  immediately  under  the  line  of  chain  support- 
ing it.  Provision  is  made  for  that  eccentricity  to  some  extent.  Still, 
there  is  a  tendency  to  open  the  hook,  and  hooks  are  made,  as  you  all 
remember,  probably,  very  much  thicker  at  their  lower  point  up  and 
down  than  they  are  crosswise,  in  order  to  counteract  their  tendency 
to  unhook  or  straighten  out.  It  would  have  helped  those  hooks  very 
materially  if  they  had  had  a  deeper  section  up  aud  down  and  a  cor- 
responding less  section  laterally. 


APPENDIX.  411 

Q.  Is  the  knowledge  of  the  transverse  strain  on  such  eccentric 
hangers  as  these  anything  new  in  mechanics?  A.  It  is  not.  Any 
one  with  common  sense  would  understand  that. 

Q.  Is  it  not  one  of  the  foundation  principles  of  mechanics?  A. 
It  is. 

Q  How  about  the  fractures  on  those  bangers?  A.  I  think  a 
large  part  of  them  was  old. 

Q.  The  same  proportion  of  them  as  has  been  described  by  Mr.  Phil- 
brick  and  Professor  Swain?     A.    Yes,  sir;  the  same. 

Q.  Before  leaving  the  question  of  the  floor  system,  I  will  ask  you 
if  von  know  what  the  diameter  of  a  ear  wheel  is?  A.  They  are 
from  thirty  to  thirty-six  inches  ;  I  presume  most  of  those  wheels  were 
thirty  inches.  On  the  Pullman  cars  now-a-days  they  are  putting 
thirty-six  inch  wheels,  and  I  think  sometimes  as  high  as  forty. 

Q.  Have  you  calculated  the  effect  of  the  eccentricity  of  these  hang- 
ers upon  their  supporting  power?  A.  I  have  not;  I  think  I  have  an 
appreciative  sense  of  the  danger  of  it,  however. 

Q.  In  your  opinion  was  there  any  proper  way  of  making  an 
examination  of  this  bridge?  Could  a  person  have  made  a  satisfac- 
tory examination  of  this  bridge?  A.  The  bridge  could  have  all 
been  examined,  excepting  the  matter  of  these  hangers.  I  think. 
I  don't  know  whether  that  could  have  been  done  or  not.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  something  could  have  been  ascertained  by  sounding  them, 
but  I  am  not  certain  on  that  point. 

Q.  Sounding  them?  A.  Yes,  sir;  striking  them  with  a  hammer 
-where  they  appeared  below. 

Q.  Was  there  any  way  of  looking  at  them  ?  A.  There  was  no  way 
of  looking  at  any  part  of  them,  excepting  the  lower  ends,  I  think; 
that  is,  the  bottom  part  of  the  bottom  eyes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  method  of  discovering  that  eccentricity ?  A. 
Well,  sir,  I  don't  think  that  could  certainly  have  been  ascertained, 
though  possibly  it  might. 

Q.  Would  a  person  in  examining  that  bridge  be  justified  in  assum- 
ing that  there  was  no  eccentricity  there?  A.  I  think  so.  It  is  so 
unusual  to  make  links  in  that  way,  that  I  suppose  one  would  naturally 
assume  that  they  were  not  made  in  that  way. 

Q.  Would  it  have  been  perfectly  easy  for  any  one  to  satisfy  himself 
that  they  were  eccentric?  A.  I  don't  know  that  I  am  sufficiently 
familiar  with  their  positions  when  put  together,  to  answer  that.  I 
think  there  is  some  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  Hi: wins.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  suggest,  I  think  if  you  put 
the  two  whole  ones  together  he  can  tell  better. 

(The  two  whole  hangers  were  placed  together  and  the  witness  ex- 
amined them.) 


412  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

The  Witness.  I  am  by  no  means  certain  that  that  eccentricity 
could  be  ascertained.  The}-  would  have  to  be  put  together  in  the 
casting  in  which  they  belonged  before  one  could  answer  that  question 
fully.  There  is  an  indication  of  paint,  which  would  be  as  fur  as  one's 
sight  would  go,  probably,  and  I  don't  think  they  could  be  readily  as- 
certained to  be  certainly  eccentric.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  per- 
haps, that  the  position  of  the  upper  e}-es  upon  the  upper  pin  could  not 
at  all  be  ascertained.  If  they  could  be  seen,  then  we  should  have 
known  there  was  eccentricity.  But,  as  I  understand,  those  were  en- 
tirely hidden.  Perhaps  in  connection  with  this  last  matter  I  might 
say  that  possibly  this  junction  may  have  been  seen  from  the  outside 
of  the  truss,  looking  in  between  the  two  I  beams  constituting  the  floor 
beam.  But  I  don't  think  that  would  enable  one  to  know  that  they 
were  eccentric. 

Q.  Would  a  competent  person  examining  that  bridge  have  passed 
over  that  point  in  it  without  investigating  the  question  of  the  exist- 
ence of  that  eccentricity?  A.  I  think  not,  sir;  I  think,  knowing 
that  that  was  one  of  the  vital  parts  of  the  structure,  he  must  have 
known  something  more  about  it  than  he  could  simply  see  before  he 
would  pass  it. 

Q.  What  other  defects  did  you  notice  in  the  construction  of  the 
bridge,  if  an}T?  A.  A  want  of  continuity  and  stiffness  in  the  com- 
pression members  is  a  fault. 

Q.  Due  to  lack  of  continuity  or  to  the  weakness  of  the  parts?  A. 
Due  to  lack  of  continuity.  The  compression  members  were  held  in 
place  mainly  by  the  compression,  due  to  the  weight  of  the  bridge  and 
the  weight  of  the  load.  They  were  temporarily  fastened  in  their  cast- 
ings by  little  lugs,  which,  in  the  case  of  the  top  chord  and  raking 
posts,  were  three  pieces  of  iron,  six  inches  wide  and  half  an  inch 
thick,  extending  into  the  casting,  —  I  should  say  an  inch,  perhaps. 
Then  at  the  bottoms  of  these  castings,  where  the  floor  beams  were 
attached,  there  were  little  cast-iron  lugs,  extending  out  two  or  three 
inches.  I  should  say  each  of  these  different  parts  of  the  chord  had  a 
temporary  rest,  which  would  have  no  efficiency  whatever  in  keeping 
the  chord  in  line. 

Q.  What  was  the  workmanship  of  the  compression  chord?  A.  I 
think  it  was  very  poor. 

Q.  And  the  extension?  A.  Better.  The  compression  members 
were  made  of  I  beams.  The  top  and  the  bottom  of  those  beams  seem 
to  be  made  of  good,  tenacious  iron.  The  web  connecting  these,  I 
think,  Mas  an  inferior  kind  of  iron  and  showed  more  or  less  of  crys- 
tallization in  the  break.  The  most  northerly  top  chord  was  split  through 
half  its  length  in  its  fall  or  in  the  fall  of  the  Wreck  upon  it.  There 
was  a  split  of  thirteen  feet  in  length  in  the  Dedham  end  of  that  member. 


APPENDIX.  413 

Q.  Of  the  northerly  top  chord?  A.  Yes,  sir.  The  upper  cud  of 
the  raking  post  at  the  Boston  end  was  torn  in  throe  parts  of  its 
membership.  It  was  made  of  six  pieces  of  iron,  three  eye-bars  and 
three  pieces  of  about  half-inch  iron  connecting;  those  together  ;  and 
out  of  three  of  those  members  there  were  pieces  torn,  probably  at  the 
time  of  the  fall.  It  is  most  probable  that  they  weir  crushed  at  the 
time  of  the  blows  on  the  skew-back  at  its  top. 

Q.  What  is  your  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  best  method  of  test- 
ing or  making  an  examination  of  an  iron  bridge?  A.  1  think  the 
best  way  is  to  measure  its  parts,  calculate  their  strains,  and  see  that 
there  is  ample  metal  in  the  various  parts.  The  testing  of  a  bridge 
by  a  dead  load  may  be  useful  in  detecting  some  mistake,  some  over- 
sight, some  accident,  or  some  flaw  which  could  not  be  seen  otherwise. 
But  other  than  that  it  seems  to  me  it  is  of  very  little  use.  It  is  nut 
enough  to  test  it  in  that  way.  It  should  be  tested  under  a  moving  load 
of  the  heaviest  sort  to  be  used,  and  at  the  greatest  speed  to  be  used  ; 
and  it  is  not  always  safe  for  the  train  men  to  do  a  thing  of  that  sort. 
My  impression  is  that  the  best  way  is  to  see  that  the  parts  are  properlv 
proportioned,  find  out  who  built  it,  whether  they  were  reputable 
workmen,  with  character,  responsibility  and  standing.  I  think  that 
is  the  best  that  can  be  done. 

Q.  Is  a  heavy  load  upon  a  bridge  apt  to  weaken  it?  A.  Veiy 
often  it  may. 

Q.  Might  it  in  this  case  upon  this  bridge?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  should 
think  it  would  be  very  likely  to. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  This  split  of  the  chord,  I  take  it.  you  as- 
sume to  have  been  made  by  the  fall  of  some  of  the  cars  upon  it  or 
running  thorn  over  it,  do  you  not?  A.  I  think  so.  But  I  think 
they  should  have  bent  rather  than  have  broken. 

Q.  Was  it  the  web  of  the  I  beam  that  split  ?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  I 
think  the  other  iron  connecting  the  I  beams  was  much  better  iron. 
There  is  a  specimen  of  it  here,  if  Mr.  Philbrick  would  like  to  sec  it. 
Perhaps  he  has  seen  it. 

Mr.  Philbrick.     I  took  one  myself. 

Q.  No  test  that  could  have  been  devised  would  have  been  so 
severe  upon  this  particular  defect  as  the  running  of  a  heavy  lor. .mo- 
tive over  it,  would  it?     A.    I  suppose  not,  sir. 

Q.    Then,  if  yon  had  been  going  to  test  the  bridge  with  a  view  to 
discovering  if  there  was    any  weakness   in    this   hanger,  you   would 
simply  have    run    the    heaviest   locomotive    you   could    find   over    it. 
wouldn't  you?       A.    If,  after  examination,  it  was  found  aafi 
that. 

Q.  I  mean,  supposing  you  were  not  going  to  make  an  examination, 
but  wished  to  test  the  strength  of  this  hanger,  the  bi  V( 


414  BUSSEY  BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

could  apply  wouM  be  to  run  the  heaviest  locomotive  over  it  you  could 
find,  wouldn't  it?  A.  Except  you  also  add  a  dead  weight  upon  the 
bridge  before,  or  perhaps  run  two  locomotives  together  over  it. 

Q.  Would  two  locomotives  bear  any  heavier  on  this  hanger  than 
one?  A.  Well,  there  would  have  been  a  more  general  strain  and 
vibration  in  the  whole  bridge  with  two  locomotives  than  with  one. 

Q.  Still,  if  the  ordinary  locomotive  run  on  the  bridge  was,  say, 
a  thirty-ton  locomotive,  it  would  be  a  pretty  severe  test  to  run  a  fifty- 
ton  locomotive  over  it,  at  its  usual  rate  of  speed,  wouldn't  it?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  In  your  judgment,  if  a  competent  bridge 
expert  had  examined  the  parts  of  this  bridge  before  it  was  erected, 
would  he  have  passed  that  bridge  as  safe?  A.  Well,  sir,  that  is  tes- 
tifying upon  the  competency  of  Mr.  Hewins,  I  suppose,  but  my  im- 
pression would  be  that  it  was  not  good  engineering. 

Q.  If  any  competent  bridge  engineer  had  examined  that  bridge 
after  it  was  put  up,  and  from  that  time  down  to  the  time  that  it  was 
wrecked,  would  he,  in  your  judgment,  have  passed  it  as  a  safe  bridge? 
A.  I  don't  think  he  would,  sir,  because  there  were  parts  hidden 
which  he  could  not  pass  without  seeing,  —  vital  points. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
Railroad  Commissioners  have  examined  that  bridge  annually,  with  at 
least  three  engineers,  who  have  been  generally  supposed  to  be  com- 
petent, who  have  at  different  times  examined  it,  and  have  never 
reported  anything  against  that  bridge?  A.  Well,  it  requires  eternal 
vigilance.     I  suppose  they  didn't  make  the  vigilance  quite  eternal. 

Q.  Did  it  not  require  a  vigilance  awrakened  by  a  knowledge  of  the 
actual  danger?  A.  Well,  I  suppose  we  are  apt  to  be  a  little  keener 
afterwards  than  before.  As  the  fellow  said,  if  his  foresight  was  as 
good  as  his  hindsight  he  would  be  all  right. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  that  if  you  had  been  present  instead  of  Mr. 
Briggs  or  Mr.  Herschel  or  Mr.  Fuller,  at  the  various  times  when  this 
bridge  was  examined  by  the  Railroad  Commissioners  and  reported 
safe,  you  would  have  made  a  different  report  from  theirs?  A.  Well, 
they  are  all  good  engineers  ;  at  least  the  two  whom  I  know.  I  think 
they  are  better  engineers  than  I  am. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  How  common  is  it  to  see  a  bridge  con- 
structed with  its  floor  suspended  in  this  way?  A.  Well,  sir,  a  large 
part  of  pin-and-link  through  bridges  have  suspended  floors. 

Q.  Well,  of  those  that  are  not  through  bridges, — deck  bridges? 
A.  Well,  sir,  it  is  usual  to  place  the  floor  upon  the  top  chord.  I 
think  there  may  be,  perhaps,  exceptions  sometimes,  in  order  to  save 
height. 

Q.    Do  you  know  of  any  other  case  of  a  deck  bridge  on  a  railroad 


APPENDIX.  415 

with  the  floor  suspended ?  A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not.  There  are  some 
cases  of  this  sort  where  the  floor  is  suspended  at  some  point  between 
the  upper  and  lower  chords,  and  where  the  floor  beams  are  riveted  on 
to  the  posts  at  some  intermediate  point  between  the  upper  and  lower 
chords.  In  plate  bridges  it  is  quite  common  to  put  the  Boor  beams  at 
some  intermediate  point,  and  that  is  governed  largely  by  the  head 
room  required,  either  above  or  below,  and  the  necessities  of  the  case  j 
but  I  think  it  is  usually  better  to  put  it  on  the  bottom  chord  or  under 
it.  or  on  top  of  the  top  chord,  than  to  put  it  intermediate. 

Q.    (By   Mr.    Williams.)      Have    you  seen  any    specifications  or 
drawings  in  this  case  which  would  give  you  an  idea  of  the  dim. 
and  shape  of  those  hangers ?     A.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not.     Mr.  Hewins, 
I  think,  handed  to  Mr.  Crocker  this  morning  a  roll  of  plans  having  to 
do  with  this  bridge.     I  have  not  yet  had  time  to  look  them  over. 

Mr.  Hewins.  There  was  one  question  which  I  was  about  to  ask 
Mr.  Philbrick  before  the  adj  nirnment,  which,  if  there  is  no  objection, 
I  will  ask  him  now. 

Edw.uid  S.  Philurick —  recalled. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hewins.)  If  I  remember  rightly,  you  spoke  of  the 
hangers  as,  in  your  opinion,  having  been  opening,  and,  of  course, 
extending  for  some  length  of  time,  perhaps  some  years.  Can  you 
form  any  idea  as  to  the  possible  distance  that  the  openings  may  have 
increased  between  each  other  before  fracture?  A.  I  referred  to  the 
one  which  was  almost  broken  apart  as  having  undergone  a  gradual 
process  of  tearing  during  perhaps  several  years;  but  I  cannot  form 
any  idea  of  what  the  extent  of  the  opening  was,  because  it  would  take 
very  nice  measurements  to  do  so.  You  can  form  some  idea  by  put- 
ting the  parts  of  the  wdiole  one  in  contact,  and  seeing  how  much  of  an 
opening  there  is  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  With  the  broken  one  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to  deter- 
mine that,  would  it  not?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  would.  The  probable 
extension  of  that  link  when  it  finally  parted  would  not  be  more  than 
a  small  fraction  of  an  inch  ;  probably  less  than  a  quarter  of  an  inch. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  state  that  in  1884  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners employed  Mr.  S.  T.  Fuller,  formerly  of  the  Philadelphia, 
Wilmington  &  Baltimore  Railroad,  to  join  them  in  their  annual  tour 
of  inspection  of  the  railroads,  and  that,  for  the  information  of  the 
Board,  he  wrote  out  a  statement  in  regard  to  the  bridges,  and  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  the  Providence  road  I  have  it  here.  In  speaking  of 
this  bridge,  he  says  simply  this  :  ••  No.  .5.  Iron  truss  ;  double  track  ; 
only  one  track  used  ;  nondescript ;  apparently  safe  ;  over  highway." 
That  was  the  annual  inspection.  I  don't  know  how  much  of  an 
examination  he  made  of  the  bridge. 


416  BUSSEY   BRIDGE    DISASTER. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Do  not  the  records  of  the  Commission  show  that 
Mr.  Fuller  was  empk>3*ed  as  an  expert  on  behalf  of  this  Board  for 
the  purpose  of  examining  bridges? 

Mr.  Kinsley.     Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  hearing  will  be  now  closed  as  far  as  evidence 
is  concerned.  If  you  desire,  Mr.  Putnam,  to  make  an}'  remarks  to 
the  Commission,  we  will  hear  you  on  Monday  of  next  week. 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  shall  be  very  happ}T  to  say  to  the  commissioners 
what  I  have  to  say,  at  an}-  time  that  they  will  fix. 

The  Chairman.     How  long  will  it  take  you? 

Mr.  Putnam.     A  very  short  time.     An  hour  ;  perhaps  less. 

Adjourned  to  Monday,  April  4,  at  11.30. 


THIRTEENTH    DAY. 

Monday,  April  4,  1887. 
The  Board  met  at  11.30. 

George  A.  Davis  —  sworn. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Are  you  clerk  in  the  superintendent's 
office  of  the  Boston  &  Providence  Railroad?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  your  duties  keep  you  there  all  the  time?  A.  Pretty  much 
all  the  time,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  there?  A.  I  have  been  there  sixteen 
years. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  at  any  time  within  the  last  four  or  five  years 
receiving  any  complaint  as  to  nuts  being  off  of  the  Bussey  bridge? 
A.    I  have  no  recollection  of  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  any  such  complaint  was  made  when  you  were 
there  and  was  received  with  contempt  or  disregard?  A.  Well,  if  you 
will  allow  me  to  say,  sir,  in  m}r  own  wa}-,  —  parties  occasionally,  of 
course,  come  into  the  office  to  speak  of  some  matter  that  they  think 
requires  attention,  something  that  they  think  may  be  wrong  ;  whether 
it  is  important  or  otherwise,  they  are  always  treated  politely,  always 
thanked  for  their  pains,  and  always  assured  that  the  matter  will  be 
attended  to  ;  and  any  statement  to  the  contrary  I  pronounce  as  false. 
I  have  no  recollection  of  any  one  having  been  discourteously  treated 
under  such  circumstances,  —  in  fact,  under  any  circumstances.  It  is 
not  the  habit  of  the  people  who  belong  in  that  otlice  to  treat  people 
otherwise  than  courteously.     I  would  like  to  say  if,  at  any  time,  as  is 


APPENDIX.  417 

occasionally  necessary,  both  myself  and  the  superintendent  should  be 
absent,  if  any  report  of  any  matter  was  made  to  those  persons  who 

were  there  in  charge,  it  would  be  reported  at  once  to  one  or  the  other 
of  us  on  our  return.  So  that  I  can  say  that  I  have  never  heard  of  any- 
thing regarding  that  bridge,  any  complaint  of  anything,  about  nuts 
being  loose  or  anything  else. 

Q.  Are  the  young  men  whom  you  employ  now  as  messenger  boys 
the  same  that  were  there  five  or  six  years  ago?  A.  No.  sir ;  I  think 
not.  I  could  not  say  exactly  when  they  commenced,  but  I  think  they 
have  both  commenced  within  three  or  four  years  at  the  outside. 

Q.  (By  the  Chairman.)  When  persons  come  to  your  office  to 
make  a  complaint,  do  they  immediately  reach  you  or  do  they  see 
somebody  else  first?  A.  Well,  sir,  if  I  am  there,  of  course  they  reach 
me  at  once,  because  if  they  should  speak  to  any  one  first  they  would 
be  referred  immediately  to  me  ;  that  is,  if  the  superintendent  was 
absent.     If  he  was  there  they  wpuld  be  referred  to  him. 

Q.  For  instance,  suppose  a  man  should  come  to  say  that  he  saw 
something  out  of  the  way,  would  he  find  first  a  boy.  young  man  or 
clerk  before  he  reached  you  ?  A.  He  might ;  or  he  might  reach  me 
first;  he  might  happen  to  speak  to  me  before  any  one  else. 

Q.  What  would  he  naturally  do;  what  would  be  the  general  expe- 
rience? Would  he  see  3*011  first  or  some  young  clerk?  A.  Well,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  he  would  speak  to  me  first,  because  I  am 
nearest  to  the  door,  most  accessible,  in  front  of  the  door. 

Q.  And  if  he  reported  that  he  had  discovered  some  nuts  ofF  of  a 
bridge,  if  the  superintendent  were  in  would  you  refer  him  to  the  super- 
intendent?    A.    I  should  at  once  ;  yes. 

Q.  If  the  superintendent  were  not  in,  what  would  you  do  in  regard 
to  it?  A.  I  should  listen  to  what  he  had  to  say  ;  I  should  thank  him 
for  the  pains  he  had  taken  to  give  us  the  information,  as  much  as 
though  I  thought  it  was  of  the  very  greatest  importance,  and  I  should 
assure  him  that  the  matter  would  be  attended  to  at  once. 

Q.  What  action  would  you  then  take  in  regard  to  it?  A.  If  the 
superintendent  was  likely  to  be  in  shortty  I  should  wait  and  tell  him  ; 
that  is,  if  it  was  anything  that  did  not  require  instant  attention.  If 
so,  I  should  take  the  same  course  that  he  would  :  I  should  go  to  the 
proper  parties  with  the  complaint  and  request  them  to  attend  to  the 
matter. 

Q.  How  often  do  you  have  complaints  made  at  your  office?  A. 
Well,  very  infrequently.  I  don't  know  as  I  can  remember  half  a  dozen 
instances  during  the  past  ten  years. 

Q.  Has  anybody  made  any  complaint  as  to  the  management  of  the 
road  or  the  running  of  the  trains?  A.  No;  I  don't  know  of  any 
complaint  made  as  to  the  management  of  the  road  or  the  running  of 


418  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

trains.  Parties  might  come  in  sometimes  to  speak  as  to  the  con- 
venience of  certain  trains  as  it  affected  themselves,  whether  it  could 
not  be  changed,  or  something  of  that  kind  ;  nothing  else. 

Q.    About  half  a  dozen  in  how  long  a  time?     A.    Sixteen  3rears. 

Q.  Half  a  dozen  complaints  of  that  sort  in  sixteen  years?  A. 
No,  I  don't  say  that.  I  say  that  there  may  have  been  perhaps  half 
a  dozen  what  you  might  call  complaints  of  different  matters  during 
that  time.  As  to  what  their  importance  was  I  don't  say.  That  is, 
if  you  call  a  statement  in  regard  to  nuts  on  a  bridge  a  complaint.  I 
don't  know  as  it  ought  to  be  called  a  complaint ;  it  is  more  properly 
a  report. 

Q.  I  mean  by  complaint  anything  that  any  of  the  passengers  on 
the  road,  limited  to  the  passenger  service,  sees  fit  to  come  up  to  your 
office  to  make  complaint  in  regard  to,  in  connection  with  your  road. 
How  many  per  year  do  you  think  there  have  been  of  those  cases? 
A.  I  don't  think  I  could  possibly  place  any  estimate  upon  that.  I 
could  only  say  that  they  are  not  frequent. 

Q.  Well,  more  than  one  a  year?  A.  I  should  want  to  know  the 
nature  of  the  complaint  before  I  could  say  whether  there  was  more 
than  one  a  year  or  not. 

Q.  Of  all  sorts  and  kinds?  A.  I  should  say  perhaps  half  a  dozen 
a  year. 

Q.  That  would  be  one  in  two  months.  Not  oftener  than  that? 
A.    Not  oftener  than  that,  I  should  say,  according  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  And  yet  you  think  that  practically  all  complaints  are  made  to 
you,  or  that  your  office  is  the  proper  place  for  a  complaint  to  be  made, 
and  that  you  would  know  of  any  complaints  that  had  been  made  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Passengers  do  not  come  up  there  but  about  half  a  dozen  times 
in  the  course  of  a  year  to  make  a  complaint  of  any  form  or  nature  ? 
A.   That  is  it,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kinsley.)  You  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bock, 
didn't  you?     A.    I  did  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  says  that  he  reported  to  a  young  man  in  your  office,  —  did 
that  young  man  report  to  you?  A.  No,  sir  ;  it  is^a  case  that  I  never 
heard  of  before  I  read  his  testimony.  If  any  such  complaint  had 
been  made  to  any  one  in  the  office,  either  myself  or  Mr.  Folsom 
would  have  known  it  just  as  soon  as  we  came  in. 

Q.  The  young  man  would  have  been  likely  to  have  told  you  ?  A. 
He  would  have  reported,  without  any  doubt  whatever. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  Do  you  believe  that  any  such  report  was 
ever  made  as  that  which  Mr.  Bock  testifies  to?  A.  I  do  not;  I 
don't  believe  there  ever  was. 


APPENDIX.  419 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Did  you  ever  carry  a  complaint  directly 
to  the  Board  of  Directors?     A.    No.  sir. 

Q.    You  always  take  them  to  Mr.  Folsom?     A.    Certainly,  sir. 

Thomas  Doank   (recalled). 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  I  should  like  to  ask  you  to  state  to  the 
commissioners  what  purpose  the  nuts  on  the  lower  cuds  of  the  long 
vertical  rods  that  ran  from  the  top  to  the  bottom  chord  of  the  Parker 
truss  served,  and  how  important  the  absence  of  one,  two  or  three  of 
them  would  be,  on  the  under  side  of  the  under  chord?  A.  There  arc 
none,  as  I  understand,  in  the  Parker  truss. 

Q.  I  understood  there  were  some  vertical  rods  besides  the  diago- 
nals?    A.   There  are  posts. 

Q.  There  are  posts,  of  course.  But  I  understood  there  were  ver- 
tical rods  also.  I  understood  you  to  tell  me  that  they  simply  Berved 
the  purpose  of  holding  up  the  bottom  chord?  No,  sir;  I  don't 
understand  that  there  were  any  such  in  the  Parker  truss. 

(,».  What  nuts  would  there  be  on  the  under  side  of  the  Parker 
truss?  A.  My  impression  is,  though  I  am  not  certain  about  it,  that 
there  were  nuts  upon  the  lower  ends  of  the  diagonal  rods. 

Q.  But  did  you  not  say  to  me  that  those  rods  that  were  referred  to 
in  that  testimony  only  served  to  hold  up  the  bottom  chord?  A.  No, 
sir;  I  must  have  been  referring  to  the  other  truss.  If  there  are  such 
nuts,  I  think  they  are  very  vital  to  the  bridge. 

Q.    On  the  under  side  of  the  Parker  truss?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Then  the  absence  of  any  considerable  number  of  those  nuts,  if 
they  hold  the  diagonals,  would  be  a  serious  matter?     A.    Yes.  sir. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Williams.)  Are  there  any  nuts  on  that  bridge  that 
you  know  of  which,  if  properly  adjusted,  could  be  removed  by  boys? 

A.  I  don't  know  of  any.  It  is  possible  that  with  a  stone  some  of 
those  cast-iron  nuts  which  have  no  strain  upon  them  might  lie 
removed  in  that  way  ;  but  I  don't  think  those  which  have  any  tension 
upon  them  could  be. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Putnam.)  I  should  like  to  have  you  recall,  if  you 
can.  what  it  was  that  you  meant  when  you  said  to  me  while  the  testi- 
mony was  going  in,  "Those  nuts  only  serve  to  hold  up  the  lower 
chord;  they  are  nuts  on  rods  that  only  hold  up  the  lower  chord." 
You  said  to  me  as  I  was  standing  by  you  there,  that  they  were,  and  I 
understood  them  to  be,  nuts  on  the  vertical  rods  running  from  the 
top  to  the  bottom  chord,  and  serving,  as  of  course  such  nuts  could 
only  serve,  to  hold  up  the  bottom  chord?  A.  I  think  there  were 
none  such.  The  support  of  the  chord  where  the  hangers  broke  was 
the  I  beam,  answering  both  as  a  suspending  rod  and  a  post,  —  sus- 


420  BUSSEY   BRIDGE   DISASTER. 

pending  the  lower  chord  with  the  help  of  the  diagonal  braces,  and 
acting  also  as  a  post. 

Q.  I  can't  imagine  what  yon  referred  to.  You  certainly  said  those 
exact  words,  which  was  the  first  thought  that  I  had  of  it.  A.  It 
wasn't  in  the  testimony,  was  it? 

Q.  It  wasn't  in  the  testimony.  You  said  it  to  me,  and  it  was  to 
bring  it  into  the  testimony  that  I  asked  you  now.  A.  There  must 
have  been  some  misunderstanding. 

Q.  You  probably  thought  at  the  time  that  the  testimony  referred 
to  such  vertical  rods  and  that  they  were  there  ;  and  if  they  were  there 
they  would  serve  simply  to  hold  up  the  lower  chord,  and  would  have 
no  serious  strain  from  the  bridge?     A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  they  were  there  they  would  naturally  be  alongside  of  the 
I  beam,  would  they  not?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  public  hearings  upon  this  matter  will  now  be 
closed. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

ENGINEERING  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

DECJJMSE 

L£C  141998 

t  n  9i    An„,  r  •  «-                                     General  Library 
(p!30l.°lT)5476                                Universit^of  California 

